Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Petition

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Tim Eggar: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the Martin Allen action campaign which contains the signatures of 6,275 people from all over the country, including many of my constituents.
The House will remember the sad case of Martin Allen who disappeared in West London on Guy Fawkes night 1979. The Stokes family, some of whom live in my constituency, were very concerned by the event. They are close friends of the Allen family, and they decided to draw up a petition which I am presenting to the House today.
The petition reads:
That there is grave concern and anger at the amount of crimes of violence, rape and abduction throughout the United Kingdom.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take action to ensure that: 1. More police be employed patrolling the streets of the United Kingdom to deter criminals. 2. The courts be empowered to pass severe sentences on people convicted of these crimes of violence, rape and abduction. 3. More publicity be given to victims of those crimes and that there be less payment to criminals for their press stories to make sure that crime does not pay. 4. There be a return of capital punishment.
I beg leave to present the petition.
To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by Mr. Francis Pym, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Atkins and Mr. Patrick Mayhew, presented a Bill to disqualify certain persons for election to the House of Commons; to make changes in the timetable for parliamentary elections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Orders of the Day — Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on the custom of the House for hon. Members to declare interests when making a speech in the Chamber? If an hon. Member had an interest in the Zoo Licensing (No. 2) Bill, for example, it would be customary for him to declare an interest. However, sometimes the interest can relate to subsequent Bills. The 164 amendments tabled to the Bill under consideration could prevent us from reaching the Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill. Is it not obligatory for an hon. Member to declare an interest in a later Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I almost said that I would give a hypothetical reply. However, I need to think about what the hon. Member has said. If hon. Members have a financial interest, they must declare it. That is the only interest that they must declare so far as I know.

New Clause 2

QUALIFIED PREMISES

'(1) If the local authority with power to grant a licence for a zoo informs the Secretary of State that in their opinion a direction should be made under this subsection because the zoo is operated on qualified premises, he may after consulting such persons on the list as he thinks fit direct;

(a) that this Act shall not apply to that zoo, or
(b) that sections 10 and 11 or either of them shall not apply thereto.

(2) Premises shall only be qualified premises if:

(a) the principal purpose for keeping open and using the premises is unconnected with the keeping of animals for exhibition to the public;
(b) they have been kept open or used as described in paragraph (a) for not less than five years prior to the date on which this Act comes into operation;
(c) they do not form part of, and are not operated in association with, other premises which are a zoo.

(3) Any direction made under subsection (1) may be revoked or varied by a further direction of the Secretary of State made after he has consulted the local authority and such persons in the list as he thinks fit.

(4) While a direction under subsection (1) has effect, this Act, or sections 10 and 11, or either of them, shall not apply to the zoo (depending on the terms of the direction and any variation made by a further direction under subsection (2)).

(5) The Secretary of State shall secure that the local authority and any person who operates the zoo are notified in writing of any direction made under subsection (1) or (3) and a copy of any such direction shall be publicly displayed at each public entrance to the zoo.'—[Mr. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. Ted Graham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 113, in page 9, line 1, leave out clause 14.
No. 116, in clause 14, page 9, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) If the operator of a zoo informs the Secretary of State that in his opinion a direction should be made under this subsection because the number of inspectors provided for by section 10(4)(a) is too large for the zoo (having regard to the


small size of the zoo or the small number of the kinds of animal kept there), the Secretary of State may, after consulting the local authority with power to grant a licence for the zoo and such persons as he thinks fit, direct—

(a) that in the application of this Act to the zoo, section 10(4)(a) and (b) shall not apply; and
(b) that instead, any inspection to be carried out under section 10 shall be conducted by such inspector or inspectors as the Secretary of State appoints.'.

No. 117, in page 9, line 10, after '(1)', insert 'or (1A)'.
No. 119, in page 9, line 17, at end insert—
'(3A) While a direction under subsection (1A) has effect, this Act shall apply to the zoo with the modifications specified in the direction (subject to any variation made by a further direction under subsection (2)).'.
No. 123, in page 9, line 21, after '(1)', insert '(1A)'.

Mr. Graham: I understand and sympathise with what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said. I hope that the Bill will not be used for any other purpose than that for which it is meant. The Bill received all-party support on Second Reading and in Committee. The promoter of the Bill, the Minister and others have put in much hard work in an attempt to secure the best compromise. I hope that at the end of today we shall have moved forward on a Bill which has been called for by those concerned with zoos, the public, the Government and protection organisations.
The new clause and the amendments taken with it relate to the old clause 13, which subsequently became the present clause 14 of the Bill. I remind the House that when members of the Committee—not only Opposition Members—sought to change the nature of these provisions there was an equal vote in the Division, four hon. Members voting for a substantial change to delete the exclusion of small zoos, and four hon. Members voting against it. This first debate therefore allows us to get to the kernel of one of the main points of unease.
The purpose and intent of the new clause is to deal with the very small minority of operators whom we have come across and whom we would describe as disreputable and no credit to what we know as the zoo industry, in so far as it is possible to legislate for that. I appreciate that in Committee and subsequently the Minister expressed exasperation at the difficulty of producing a form of words that is all-embracing and yet provides for exclusion on proper grounds.
The new clause gives the Secretary of State discretion to waive the conditions of the Bill for pubs, dentists' waiting rooms, and so on. The Minister will recall that this was one of the points of aggravation raised in Committee. In the debate on 13 May he said:
No officious local authority official would go round to every dentist, building society manager or cafe proprietor and tell him that he is running a zoo. We must give some credit for the good sense of those who will be applying the Bill. In those few borderline cases where the verdict could go either way, there will have to be an individual decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 13 May 1981; c. 95.]
New clause 2 has been drafted to give precisely that discretion.
The clause is a further attempt to remove from the Bill the exemption of small zoos. I am bound to say that I do not like in the least legislation which in effect says that because an undertaking is small rather than medium or large different standards may apply to the manner in which

the legislation operates. When we lay down standards and call for inspections and licensing, the same standards should apply to all.
By defining what qualification and qualified premises are, the new clause seeks to achieve just that. Subsection (2)(a) attempts to meet the Minister's criticisms in Committee that our earlier amendments were an attempt to legislate for the fish tank in the dentist's waiting room, and so on. Subsection (2)(b) would stop any rush of new operators by providing that premises shall be qualified premises only if they have been used for not less than five years before the Act. Subsection (2)(c) would prevent zoos from creating artificial situations by claiming that a garden with animals in it is not a zoo, as it provides that premises shall be qualified premises only if
they do not form part of, and are not operated in association with, other premises which are a zoo.
9.45 am
I repeat that the new clause is a specific attempt to close what we consider to be a loophole in the law. It also goes some way to make the case that a local authority should not be the sole arbiter in these matters. Local authorities are already responsible for the administration of several pieces of animal welfare legislation, such as the Pet Animals Act 1951, the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. As all of us with experience of local authorities know, there is wide variation in the ability of local authorities to police any legislation. We therefore seek to make this legislation almost self-policing so that a local authority cannot plead that it has not the staff, the time or the money to police it. We want the law to be as specific as possible, because we believe that in this instance it is essential for effective control to rest with the Secretary of State's panel, which can apply uniform standards nationally.
The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), who has done so much work on the Bill, also acknowledges this point in the series of amendments grouped with the new clause by making a further attempt to deal with the matter. I am bound to say, however, that his suggested new form of words merely shifts around some of the old words which include what I regard as the offensive phrases allowing exemption to be given to a "small … zoo" and a zoo which has a
small number of … kinds of animals.
That would provide a field day not just for lawyers but for anyone who wished to see a deterioration in what we believe would be good standards. What is a "small … zoo"? What is a
small number of … kinds of animals"?
The new clause, on the other hand, spells out clearly what are "qualified premises" and what must be included.
I therefore hope that in order to make progress we shall not spend too much time on this, the first of about 50 potential debates. In my view the new clause represents a satisfactory way to catch everyone and allow the Secretary of State to make the exclusions which he rightly says should not be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I support the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) on new clause 2. I also fully endorse his comments on the work put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) in preparing the Bill. My hon. Friend has shown great responsibility and has been most diligent in carrying out consultations, albeit somewhat at the last


moment. Nevertheless, he has done tremendous work and I thoroughly endorse what the hon. Member for Edmonton said.
I trust that we shall be able to approach the Bill in a thoroughly constructive fashion today, as I believe that the vast majority of people genuinely wish to see zoo licensing legislation. Whether this is the right Bill at the moment remains to be seen. I very much hope that in the course of today we shall be able so to amend the Bill as to make it more acceptable than it is as present.
In supporting new clause 2, which replaces the present clause 14, I must admit that it more or less encompasses my amendment No. 113, which is included in this group. My amendment seeks merely to delete clause 14, because I cannot see that the special dispensation given to small zoos is necessary in any way at all. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) began by asking Mr. Speaker about Members declaring an interest. I think that I should declare an interest straight away. As the hon. Member for Edmonton will recall, in the Standing Committee debate on this issue I raised the question of the keeping of animals in, say, a pub.
I am the proud owner of a pub. As such I would certainly find myself as a zoo if I kept animals and would therefore become subject to the provisions of the Bill, which is really nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West is, I believe, a keeper of tropical fish. He in a sense, too, could find himself designated as a zoo.
I think that clause 14 as it stands is a bit of a nonsense. It gives the Secretary of State the power to give dispensation to particular zoos—mainly because of their small size—from some or all of the provisions in the Bill. I think that that would be highly unsatisfactory, because it really does offer far too great a loophole for precisely the sort of people that the Bill is intending to regulate. It also raises the very important question of what precisely is small. Without a definition as to what is small, I think that clause 14 is unsatisfactory.
The other point that I would like to make is that the dispensation given may well include many of those people whom the zoo industry would like to see brought within the regulating process. At the moment the industry is largely self-regulating. We have two major organisations, the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland and the National Zoological Association. These organisations inspect their members' zoos, but those do not amount to as much as half the number of zoos in the country, and therefore they are very concerned that small zoos might escape inspection. They are the very ones that we are trying to regulate.
There is also the possibility that a zoo that is running down because of economic circumstances, or for other reasons, could find itself suddenly coming within the provisions of clause 14. The smaller it got the more it would need to be inspected. Yet people would be asking "How small have we to get to qualify for exemption under clause 14?" That is another good reason for suggesting to my hon. Friends and to Labour Members that clause 14 is really pretty bad.
The clause also raises two further questions. First, if the Secretary of State is prepared to consult and decide on these establishments, why cannot he do it for all zoos? The opening debate in Committee was on the question of the licensing authority, and both I and the industry, and certainly those hon. Members who were representing the interests of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty

to Animals, felt that the district councils were not the right people to license zoos and that it would be far better to leave that in the hands of the Secretary of State.
If the Secretary of State is to take upon himself the power to look at all these so-called small zoos and decide whether they ought to be regulated or whether they should be outside the provisions of the Bill, this will encompass a large proportion of the existing 180-odd zoos in this country. Why cannot he do precisely the same thing for all zoos? I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, if he is to speak in this debate, to tell us why that cannot be so.
Such a proposal raises the second question of cost. One of the reasons given was "Oh well, the Secretary of State cannot do this because it will put an additional burden on public expenditure." That is nonsense. The amount involved is infinitesimal—to the Department of the Environment, that is, although it could be a large amount to a zoo.

Mr. Stephen Ross: What is the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost to the average proprietor of a reasonable sized zoo of a normal inspection? How often will such an inspection take place?

Mr. Colvin: In answer to the hon. Member I can give my estimate, which is based on what has been told to me by representatives of the zoo industry. It is that a fully qualified person who is a member of the Secretary of State's list could charge up to £200 a day for his services. Then, on top of that, if the inspection had to go over two days, there would be overnight board and lodging and the rest. It might be less if, perhaps, he had to come a short distance.
I am told that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, if its member was to do the inspection, would charge about £150 a day. In Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that if that was the sort of fee that could be charged he would not mind being an inspector himself. But the fact is that one has to deal with the situation as it is and those are the sorts of figures that an inspection would involve. With six people, which I think is the maximum under the Bill, it would mean that it could cost up to £1,200 for an inspection, or maybe more. That is big money by anybody's standards, and for small zoos it could be an astronomical amount.
I should certainly like to see the new clause approved today. As to amendment No. 113, which is in my name, I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to permit a Division on this. I would like to press it, if new clause 2 fails, in the appropriate part in the Bill, which, of course, is very much later on. If that is permitted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I shall call the amendment at the appropriate time and a Division may take place.

Mr. Colvin: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall remain on the ball to ensure that when the time comes I am prepared to move that amendment, but I very much hope that it will not be necessary, because I should like to see new clause 2 carried. The whole question of the inspection of small zoos has, I think, got a little bit out of hand. It does seem that, potentially, we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with as many as six inspectors coming along to look at these small zoos. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West


has tabled amendment—No. 116—which will replace inspections, or could reduce the number of them. The hon. Member for Edmonton suggested that that was an alternative to clause 14. I do not think that it is. It is merely an addition tagged on the end. Clause 14 in its entirety will still stand. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his query?

Mr. Colvin: The point that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech was that my hon. Friend's amendment, No. 116, which he is bringing forward, would, in fact, be a substitute for clause 14. I do not think that it is. It is tacked onto the end of clause 14.

Mr. Graham: I apologise if I was unclear. I intended to suggest that the amendment is the attempt of the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) to deal with the unsatisfactory nature of clause 14. The hon. Gentleman does not wish that clause to be excluded. I appreciate that the amendment would leave the clause intact. The amendment would merely make an addition. I was trying to say that the hon. Gentleman is keeping the sense of clause 14, to which I object.

Mr. Colvin: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Once more, may I just say that I support new clause 2 and very much hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will do so too?

Mr. Pavitt: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in congratulating the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn). I know from my own experience how much work is entailed not only in piloting a Bill through Committee but in undertaking all the homework involved. I am sure that the whole House will echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, which referred to the hon. Gentleman personally and to those who supported him in Committee.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), with his customary courtesy, declared a slight interest and mentioned that he owned a pub. If I am able to join him there to wish him good health if the Bill goes on the statute book, I understand that I may have the opportunity of seeing animals.
When I raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker, I was not stressing that there should be the customary declaration of interest on the part of those discussing this Bill on Report. It will not surprise the House to hear that my main interest is the next but one Bill on the Order Paper, which I am promoting. At the beginning of the week I was informed that the tobacco industry would block the Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Bill and would ensure that it would not be reached. That was because the Government informed me that they did not intend to block it.

10 am

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Any remarks that the hon. Gentleman makes should be related to the new clause.

Mr. Pavitt: I want to relate my remarks to new clause 2(2). The purpose of my preamble was merely to point out

why I raised the point of order. I was concerned that no amendments to the Bill had been tabled until yesterday. I wish to seek a little clarification about new clause 2(2).
I apologise to the House for not having followed the proceedings on the Bill. The House will know that I have to plead a good deal of ignorance. As I understand the proposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, new clause 2(2) deals with qualified premises. What is the halfway house for qualified premises? Unless the animals are purely for exhibition to the public, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) exclude them from the provisions.
A good deal of medical research is carried out on animals. Although a zoo may be legitimate and licensed under the terms of the Bill, at the same time there could be an arrangement by which, from time to time, animals are borrowed for medical research. That could be a custom. I should like to know whether that falls within the provisions of the subsection about qualified premises. Recently there was considerable fuss about smoking beagles. Present research on lung diseases is more concerned with monkeys, which are used extensively in that way. One must have a supply of monkeys. Would the registration of a zoo be affected by new clause 2 if that zoo made an arrangement with research departments whereby from time to time it bred and loaned animals for medical research?

Dr. Alan Glyn: I have been present during discussions on many such Bills, and I know well that the public are extremely concerned about the subject. I believe that all those Bills failed because of their drafting. I welcome new clause 2, which is the only clause about which we can talk now. It seems to be the only way in which we can overcome the difficulties. We were criticised heavily for opposing all those previous Bills, because it was thought that we were against zoos. That was not the reason at all. We objected to the drafting. New clause 2 possibly overcomes one of the main difficulties, when other Bills have failed to do so. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
A large number of new clauses and amendments have been tabled to the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will be as brief in their remarks as I have been.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret interrupting my hon. Friend. He said that it was in order only to discuss new clause 2 at present. I believe that reference to the other amendments that are being discussed with new clause 2, including amendment No. 113, which suggests that clause 14 should be deleted, is in order, so my hon. Friend may go on with his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendments may be referred to with the new clause.

Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I expressed myself badly. We are discussing those amendments with new clause 2. However, I made a point of not going too wide because I felt that if I did so we could run into the danger of running out of time. None of us would wish to do that. I add my congratulations to my colleagues on both sides of the House who have worked together to try to achieve a Bill which is workable and by which effective control can be introduced.
Inspection and control are always difficult to carry out. Whatever form of inspection and control one institutes, one always finds that the inspectors turn up on the wrong day. It is impossible to legislate for that. The Bill gives a measure of support—perhaps not sufficient—to enable the Secretary of State to regulate the number of inspectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) mentioned costs, which could be a real obstacle for small zoos and could almost make them bankrupt.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend have a zoo in his constituency, and, if so, has he had the opportunity to discuss the measure with it?

Dr. Glyn: I have, and my hon. Friend will know what happened to it at one stage. I discussed the matter on previous occasions and I was heavily criticised because I could not support that Bill. However, I did not support it, not because of its intentions, but because of its drafting. On this occasion the drafting of the Bill has overcome the difficulties that were originally brought to my attention, not by the zoo, but by outside interests, and lawyers who realised that it would be impossible to give effect to the drafting. This Bill overcomes those difficulties, and that is why I support it but did not support the others.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) for bringing in a Bill that has a magnificent conception. We want legislation to deal with the management of zoos, but I am in a dilemma, which I shall now describe.
A zoo is defined in clause 1(2) as
an establishment where wild animals … are kept for exhibition to the public otherwise than for purposes of a circus … and this Act applies to any zoo to which members of the public have access".
Clause 21(1) defines animals as:
Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia, Amphibia, Pisces and Insecta and any other multi cellular organism that is not a plant or a fungus".
That is an enormously wide provision. It covers everything of which I could possibly conceive, provided the public had an opportunity of having access to it.
I have gone out of my way to give much thought to the matter and to consider what would be included and the advantage of the new clause. The following would be covered: a deer park, an aquarium in a dentist's waiting room, a fish pond in a public park, ornamental ducks, an aviary, a fishmonger who sells live lobsters or crabs, a restaurant with a trout tank and a fish farm which admits the public. The designers of the new clause are clearly trying to work out what is a suitable exemption. I believe that the interpretation should have been redevised to include the animals that should be covered by the provision.
My dilemma is further deepened. The new clause seeks to achieve its aim, in effect, by revoking clause 14. I note that the chairman of the RSPCA is in the Chamber. She supports that aim. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West has tabled amendments Nos. 116, 117, 119 and 123 to modify clause 14. It would help if my hon. Friend would say whether he accepts our proposal to delete clause 14. My dilemma is yet further deepened, because we do not have the remotest idea what view the Minister will take. The legislation in this whole area is comprehensive. There are 36 measures and statutory instruments generally affecting zoos, disease prevention

and conservation. Where is the gap in the legislation? Cruelty is covered by the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1964. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 protects staff and the public. The gap is in the management of zoos.
We have 150 zoos, some of which are small and others large. It has been said that the legislation would involve cost, and we are considering which zoos should be excluded. This is a pretty heavy Bill merely to define those zoos to which the legislation should apply and to set the right management code and standards for them.
The new clause has become contorted, but I propose to support it, as I do not like clause 14. Perhaps the Minister can ask the parliamentary draftsman to change the awkward wording. If the language in the clause had to be interpreted by the Divisional Court or another part of the judiciary, I believe that it would be found that many so-called zoos fell outside the provisions. New clause 2 invests a great deal of authority in the Minister. He is given the discretion to decide which zoos should come outside the provisions. The way to do that, of course, is correctly to interpret the clause.
I do not oppose the Bill. There is a large zoo near my constituency—Woburn safari park. I dare say that it would support legislation to maintain a high level of management. I simply wish to see passed a Bill that is acceptable to the industry and the public. We wish to avoid the danger of there being no rules laid down. If the Bill is to apply in the right quarters, we need a code of practice. I have kept my remarks succinct, as I support the Bill.

Mr. John Peyton: I tell the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) that I am not here to make an improper use of the Bill. I am not in the least concerned with those Bills that follow. In fact, I shall probably be reasonably hostile to them, simply because I am no great fan of modern legislation. If I had a careful look at them, I dare say that I would have something rough to say about them.
I am here for two reasons. First, I have a well-run establishment in my constituency that would certainly be covered by the Bill. Secondly, I do not like optimistic and messy legislation. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) that I recognise what a great deal of hard work has to go into such a measure, and I am a little sorry that he is saddled with this well-intentioned but messy Bill.
The hon. Member for Edmonton was not as justified as he believed in claiming that the Bill has universal support. There are serious objections to the Bill and the new clause. In passing, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with this point in his reply. Subsection (4) of the new clause contains the shining words:
While a direction under subsection (1) has effect, this Act, or sections 10 and 11, or either of them, shall not apply to the zoo (depending on the terms of the direction and any variation made by a further direction under subsection (2)).
I could not be called offensive or unreasonable if I said that that wording left something to be desired in terms of lucidity. It is not limpid clear. In fact, it is rubbish. If the new clause is accepted, I hope that it will be doctored in another place.
I wish to deal with the question of local authorities and the Secretary of State, for both figure prominently in the new clause. It is monstrous that the Government


constantly tell local authorities that they must cut their spending and staffs, then in the next breath impose on them further duties, without much thought as to whether they are the proper bodies and have the necessary skills to discharge them.
I am a great admirer of the Yeovil district council, but I do not believe that it would claim to have on its staff people expert in running zoos. It would face a serious problem if it had imposed on it the duty of supervising one fairly large establishment within its province.

Mr. David Crouch: I feel that my right hon. Friend is revealing the inadequacy of his under-standing of the Bill. He did not take part in Second Reading and was not on the Committee, and he is speaking with a lack of knowledge of what happened. An essential part of the Bill is the Secretary of State's list, which from a central point provides names of authoritative and qualified persons to assist the local authority. Local authorities, through the Association of District Councils, welcome further legislation that would afford the opportunity to make inspections.

Mr. Peyton: I shall have to live in a state of great unhappiness with that magisterial rebuke administered to me by my hon. Friend, but I assure him that it will not cause me all that much distress or make me change my mind.
I am unmoved by the fact that somebody may have expressed a contrary opinion. In my view most local authorities will not be competent to discharge the duties under the Bill. If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will have patience, I shall come later to the role of the Department of the Environment and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have the doubtful privilege of dwelling in that monstrous building.
In this place we have contracted a bad disease. We are addicted to passing messy legislation in the hope that somehow it will be made to work and that we shall develop the skills to perform the duties imposed by it. Before we pass legislation we should ensure that the means of carrying it out sensibly and properly are at hand. I do not think that they are now.
Apart from the fact that local authorities do not possess the necessary skills to discharge these duties, I wonder whether local authorities are the correct people to do it. There are 150 establishments to be covered by the Bill. There will be local authorities, as in my constituency, which will have a considerable duty put upon them, but here only one establishment to look after. Centralisation would remove anomalies, make it easier for zoo operators to know where they stand and relieve local authorities of a heavy burden.
Who goes to zoos? They are not visited by local people. They are national institutions, and for that reason they should be dealt with nationally. I question whether local authorities have the necessary skills. Would they be able to judge between the opinions of experts, which vary greatly? Could they judge the quality of reports, which it would be their duty to receive and consider? What sense would the records make to them?
Why has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment become so coy and modest about this? He has taken over responsibility for zoos from the Home Secretary? He has many what I describe as neighbouring

responsibilities. In the Bill and the new clause he has the power of direction. It is his duty to draw up and administer standards. He must compose lists of inspectors and he has a duty to settle disagreements. Why should he not do everything instead of leaving local authorities with residual duties? I see no point whatsoever in decentralisation. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the only reason why Ministers in the Department of the Environment are not prepared to accept complete responsibility is that they fear that there will be an element of public expenditure and they do not want to carry the blame for that.
In those circumstances I am inclined to think that the new clause is not as good as some of my hon. Friends have generously said. It is perhaps marginally better than clause 14, which I regard as objectionable, but new clause 2 is something of a confession. When it comes to details and small organisations the Bill backs off, because a bureaucratic exercise might appear oppressive and ridiculous in such cases. I wonder whether that is right. A small unit is less visible than a larger one. It is therefore less open to public criticism. There will be less opportunity too for the public to see it and recognise that something is amiss. A small unit that has been in use for five years is perhaps most likely to be abused and is the area in which things can go seriously wrong.
I see little sense in new clause 2. I should not go to the lengths of voting against it, because it is reasonably well-intentioned, as is the rest of the Bill. I profoundly hope that if the Bill is sent from here unamended to another place it will be properly treated and that the other place will deal with this matter, which we cannot deal with on the amendments that have been selected today, and make it clear that the Government and the Secretary of State are responsible for zoos. It is wrong to seek to delegate that duty to authorities which are not strictly competent to do it and do not have the staff. It is unfair to put them in such a position.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: I express my appreciation for the warm and generous tribute paid to the Bill. I have noted some of the comments made about the new clause.
New clause 2 is almost parallel to that discussed in Committee. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) is correct. This was subject to great debate in Committee and the final result was four hon. Members in favour of the general theme of the new clause and four against. It is self-evident, from the conversations outside the House and the debates inside, that this is a delicately balanced issue. There are some limitations to new clause 2. It does not give discretion to admit fish tanks in public houses to the definition of a zoo, unless they have been there for five years. There are many aspects of the new clause that I find commendable.
Throughout the passage of the Bill I have always found much confidence and assurance in the expression "the Secretary of State shall". That has been echoed by several Members in the debate.

Mr. Colvin: That is fine. I am all in favour of the phrase "the Secretary of State shall". When the Secretary of State says "I shall" but then adds "but I shall not pay" that is another matter. That is the real issue at stake. The Secretary of State is making directions, saying that he will


do certain things, but he is passing the cost on down the line through the local authority to the zoos. That is the issue.

Mr. Blackburn: The consultation is another important aspect related to clause 2. I feel that this would be a useful opportunity—if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will exercise charity towards me—for me to explain to the House that for seven months I have been engaged in discussions with deputations of people in the zoo industry and outside it, from national bodies of high standing. I have visited zoos in this county and abroad in carrying out research for this Bill. I am astounded when I look at the names of the hon. Members supporting new clause 2. The representations that I have received from the zoo industry corporately show that it is genuinely concerned about costs. I have taken those representations on board in my discussions, which have gone as far as the Minister of State. If we were to abandon clause 14 the cost to the zoo industry should be so prohibitive that I would not want to be part of it.
My amendments to clause 14—Nos. 116, 117, 119 and 123—give the Secretary of State, no less, the power to exempt certain very small establishments from the provisions of clauses 10 and 11. Furthermore, as to the abandonment of clause 14—and that is the issue before us—it is within the confines of clause 14 that we have been able to provide for the small zoo that requires only one inspector to carry out an inspection, which could last half a day and which could cost between £100 and £150. If clause 14 is removed, an army of inspectors will go to the small bird garden. It is in the interests of the zoo industry to keep costs down.
My amendments do not replace clause 14; they add to it. I have great affection for the industry and I must declare a small interest in it, since it gives a wonderful service to the people of this country and to tourists and performs an educational and a recreational role.
Within the confines of clause 14 there are safeguards that the zoo industry wishes to have, safeguards in financial terms and from the point of view of legislation too, because the issue is in the domain of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. If the new clause were passed, the costs would be tremendous. If it were passed and if clause 14 fell, there would be no right of appeal to the Secretary of State for exemption. There would be no right to say to the Secretary of State "Sir, we are a small bird garden," or "Sir, we are a small aquarium"—or something like that. "We are so small that we require an inspection. Come and inspect us, but inspect with an appropriate number that will keep the costs down."
In the spirit of honesty and fairness that the House has always shown to me, and which I now return, let me say that there is great merit in the new clause. I am not hostile to it. However, I must look at new clause 2 and clause 14 with the additions. With the costs that would be involved in the new clause, and bearing in mind the representations that have been made to me by the zoo industry on the cost factor, I would favour clause 14 with amendments Nos. 116, 117, 119 and 123.

Mr. Colvin: This is a very important point. I appreciate what my hon. Friend is trying to say. I would support his amendment. However, I would much prefer to see that amendment, which, as he says, enables the numbers of inspectors coming to inspect zoos to be reduced in the case

of small zoos. That is a constuctive addition to the Bill. But the point is that the rest of clause 14 remains, and still maintains the loophole, and it is the loophole that needs closing. Will my hon. Friend undertake, perhaps between now and the Bill going to another place—if it passes through this House—to look again at the main object of clause 14, which is to give dispensation, and to consider some other form or wording that would permit him to bring in his amendment No. 116 to reduce the number of inspectors, but still succeed in closing this loophole?

Mr. Blackburn: My hon. Friend is in a greater dilemma than I am, because at the commencement of the debate he told the House that he would divide it, and he reserved his right on amendment No. 113 to abandon clause 14. If we throw out clause 14 we cannot have these amendments, which are commendable. It is either one or the other.
I have a great affection for my hon. Friend. I am saying with all the sincerity that I can muster that I would welcome that change in another place. I would welcome anything that enhances the Bill and anything that makes sure that it is a very fine Bill and a credit to the House. I shall certainly take that point on board.

Mr. Skeet: Has my hon. Friend any relative costings, first on clause 14, as he has suggested, with the various amendments added in, and the new clause? He has had notice of this and he is saying that it is a question of costs. I appreciate that we are trying to keep down liabilities. Can my hon. Friend give some sort of link on that matter?

Mr. Blackburn: First, costs are related to the number of inspectors. I am commending the amendments standing in my name to clause 14, so that in small establishments inspections will be carried out by members of the list, and the number of inspectors will depend upon the powers of the Secretary of State to say that a small number can carry out the inspection.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when he says that costs are entirely related to the number of inspectors, that is not true? The real problem for most zoos is falling attendances. The most important thing for them is to get enough people to visit them. One of the things that has been reducing the number of visitors is the fact that some visitors have been pretty disgusted by one or two small zoos which they have seen, with the result that they do not bother to look at any other zoos. The most important thing for the good zoos is to get inspections and thus stop the bad zoos spoiling everyone else's reputation. That is far more important than the cost of a few inspectors.

Mr. Blackburn: There is no difference between the views expressed by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and myself. I believe that his comments will gain universal acclaim throughout the House today. The responsible, long-established, mature zoos that give excellent service have nothing to fear from the Bill. There is concern about costs, which I appreciate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the small, disreputable zoo. I am delighted that the Secretary of State should decide who carries out the inspection. If the inspection revealed adverse findings, the licence would not be issued and the zoo would be closed. The reputable part of the zoo industry would have nothing to do with that kind of establishment.
I commend to the House the amendments standing in my name, on the ground of cost to the zoo industry. I have sympathy with new clause 2, which has been so excellently debated. I give an assurance, as promoter of the Bill, that the goodness contained in new clause 2 will not be forgotten in another place.

Mr. Crouch: The arguments have been advanced clearly for new clause 2 and amendments Nos. 116, 117, 119 and 123, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn). I come down in favour of retaining clause 14 and accepting his amendments. They would add strength to the Bill and protection for zoo operators, particularly small operators. There are no grounds for anyone in the House or outside fearing that clause 14 does not contain loopholes that will help them, as opposed to loopholes that will not help. Clause 14 grants discretion to the local authority to say to the Secretary of State that, because the zoo is so small, the inspection requirement under the essential part of clause 11 need perhaps not apply. This reduces the cost for the small operator, say, of a fish tank that could otherwise be categorised as a zoo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West has gone overboard in amendment No. 116 to try to respect the wishes of the small operator, as expressed in Standing Committee. He proposes that it is not only the local authority that can make representations to the Secretary of State that the zoo does not merit a great panoply of inspectors visiting the premises at great cost, but that one inspector might suffice. The amendment might also assist my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who was concerned whether responsibility lay with the local authority or the Secretary of State. It gives the small operator the right to contact the Secretary of State personally to explain that the zoo covers only a quarter of an acre, or one tank, and that it does not merit the great cost, time and effort involved in sending half a dozen inspectors.
10.45 am
I believe that clause 14 must remain. If the issue is brought to a vote, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) that the deletion of clause 14 must be opposed. Clause 14 is pretty good. Nothing is ever perfect in legislation. The words are often inadequate and sometimes appear to non-lawyers as rather stupid. The content of clause 14 is not stupid. The content is wise, careful and considerate of the small zoo owner. It has been greatly helped by the addition of the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West.
Clause 14, so amended, is much better in the interests of protecting the small zoo and the small zoo owner, who is given the right to go direct to the Secretary of State. It ensures that the small zoo owner will not be burdened by great costs. I commend, therefore, the acceptance of clause 14, plus the amendments, and the rejection of new clause 2.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. This is a most important next stage towards implementing the Bill. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley,

West (Mr. Blackburn), along with Lord Craigton, who has looked after the Bill in the other place, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), have adopted a positive approach. We are endeavouring to raise the standard of all zoos to those of our best. We have a large number of good zoos. They have nothing to fear. We are looking carefully at the issue of costs. I am certain, however, that when the Bill is on the statute book, those zoos that give us cause for great heartache and concern will have to raise their standards. This will be to their own advantage. They would then attract many more visitors and their finances, one hopes, would improve to enable them to face the modest cost, spread over years, for the issue of a licence.
I appreciate that many of the amendments tabled by the sponsor and myself have been placed on the Amendment Paper at a relatively late stage. I can only apologise. Other hon. Members have rightly put down amendments in case the amendments of the Government and the sponsor are not adequate. New clause 2 and amendment No. 113 might not have appeared had there been a longer time for my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) and those interested in the zoo industry to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West proposes to add to clause 14.
We are not discussing clause 14 in opposition to new clause 2. We are discussing clause 14, plus the amendments, as against new clause 2. A careful reading of clause 14 plus the amendments shows that it is a step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West accepts that there is much merit in parts of new clause 2. If, in another place, those parts of new clause 2 that have merit can be worked into clause 14, I would look with favour on such a development. The objective of the legislation is to produce the best possible Act of Parliament in the interests of the zoos and the public and also in the interests, which they cannot express themselves, of the animals. Many hon. Members have been concerned about the welfare of animals in certain establishments. One welcomes the involvement in the progress of the Bill of so many organisations interested in animal welfare.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West put his point clearly. His amendment No. 116 is designed to help the small zoo and to reduce the number of inspectors and, therefore, straight away reduce the cost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said that there was a loophole in clause 14. I do not think that there is, because the Secretary of State must be consulted in all cases and must consult the list before any zoo is taken out of the licensing system. The list contains experts in both zoo management and animal welfare, in particular people with veterinary expertise. There should be nothing now in clause 14 that will give concern to the small zoo owner.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. friend give some idea of the number of small zoos that are likely to gain exemption under clause 14? Will he also answer the question that I asked him earlier: if the Secretary of State is prepared to carry out this function in relation to clause 14 for the dispensation for small zoos, why is he not prepared to undertake the whole role of licensing for the entire industry?

Mr. Monro: I cannot, off the top of my head, give even the approximate number of small zoos. My hon. Friend probably has a good an idea of the number as I have. It all depends on the interpretation of clause 14. The zoo has to apply for a licence and then see whether it will be accepted by the Secretary of State as a small zoo. We must be flexible, and if the decision whether a zoo is small or otherwise is finely balanced, the Secretary of State will decide. The amendment has been included to help the small zoos.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked why the Secretary of State did not operate the whole system. My right hon. Friend really answered the question himself. The Secretary of State does not wish his Department to incur additional public expenditure for operating the whole licensing system. That is why, with the acceptance of the local authorities, we have moved in that direction. I see no reason why the system should not work effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Skeet: Is not my hon. Friend suggesting, therefore, that all the cost will be met from the rates, unless it is retrieved from the industry?

Mr. Monro: As my hon. Friend knows, the inspection costs will have to be funded direct by the industry. Much of the work carried out by the local authorities will be work already done by officials in fulfilling their duties to do with drains, public health and public protection. Where the cost to the local authority specifically relates to the zoo, as opposed to public health and drains, that will be a charge on the industry. Therefore, we hope that the charge on the rates will not be exceptional.

Mr. Peyton: The Secretary of State has imposed upon him many duties and will therefore require many expert advisers within his Department. Why does he not use them to cover the whole system, instead of delegating to local authorities and involving them in the expense also of recruiting, from a limited pool, enough experts to enable them to do their task?
If the Government wish to avoid any further public expenditure, why do they not recover, in the same way as local authorities will under the Bill, the costs that they incur? I do not understand my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Monro: We discussed that matter in some detail on Second Reading and it was a central theme in Committee.
Where I differ marginally from my right hon. Friend is on the involvement of the Secretary of State in compiling the list. Naturally the preparation of the initial list will take some work by one or two officials in my Department, who will have to collate the names and then work out the two lists, but once it is established there will be a minimum amount of work to be carried out by the Department and there will be no additional staff requirement. Were we to take on the full licensing and checking responsibilities we should require additional staff, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept that.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend's Department is constantly urging local authorities to cut their expenditure and staff. Now he is saying that his Department will not recruit additional staff, but I think that he will need to, because he has large responsibilities to discharge under the Bill. I do not understand what will be gained by imposing

this duty on local authorities and not facing the fact that ultimately my right hon. Friend is responsible. It would be easier for him, and it would be more efficient from the public's point of view, if he did the whole job.

Mr. Monro: Naturally, my right hon. Friend has given the matter careful thought over the period of the development of the Bill and when it was presented in another place by Lord Craigton. This is not new legislation that has appeared out of the blue; it has been evolving over some years.
My right hon. Friend is exaggerating the number of staff involved. We shall have the two lists set up by the Secretary of State, and the local authorities should not have to add anything to their staff requirements to implement the licensing of relatively few zoos spread across the country. The public health and protection expertise that will be needed—only a few hours during the inspection—will not require the employment of additional staff and certainly will not add substantially to the charge to the ratepayers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was clear that this method—working through the local authority licensing system—was the best for all interests, and that is what we have developed throughout the consideration of the Bill so far.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend is being very helpful, but I am troubled. Clause 15(5) states that:
The local authority shall secure … fees … sufficient to cover the amount of expenditure incurred by the authority".
Therefore, if my hon. Friend does not accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), that the work should be done centrally, all the fees will have to be paid by the industry. Yet some of the industry is very small. This is a large Bill, containing 23 clauses and the imposition will be very heavy. There will be a burden.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate that the industry will face two financial impositions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West explained the licensing fee. It will involve sums of perhaps £20 to £25 an hour for so many hours' inspection. Small zoos could probably be done in half a day, and the larger zoos might take two days. However, I am not certain about that. I leave it to the experts. If inspectors find deficiencies in zoos, whether in safety or animal welfare, I am certain that we would be at one in saying that the zoo should be required, over a reasonable period, to put that right. That is the purpose of the Bill. If we do not accept that the Bill will inevitably cost inefficient zoos something, the purpose of the legislation will be null and void. It will, of course, cost zoos something to raise their standards to the required level.
I advise the House to accept the amendment to clause 14 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West, and agree to look at new clause 2 in another place to see whether any parts of it can be developed into clause 14 to the advantage of the Bill and the zoo industry.

11 am

Mr. Graham: If it is not a trite phrase, we have had a most illuminating and valuable one-and-a-half hours' debate on this issue. I hope that it is not an indication of how long we shall spend on the other items. I am conscious of the time.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), in a few words, satisfied me of the merit of new


clause 2. He told us about a zoo which at one time may have been larger rather than smaller, well run and efficient, and which people were proud to visit, but which, with the passage of time, perhaps because of a change of management or policy, gradually changed to a small badly managed zoo. It would be wrong if it were possible to escape the licensing provisions merely by the criterion of size.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) raised the issue of the smoking beagles. He wondered whether that kind of syndrome was caught by the licensing provisions, bearing in mind that the Bill relates to the licensing of premises for the display of animals. Of course, the Bill has nothing to do with that.
I accept what the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said, that the measure is a large Bill to deal with a comparatively small matter. As with most legislation, the Bill contains a lot of awkward wording. I agree also that if it were possible to rely, as he suggested, on a code of practice—the voluntary principle—we should not need or want to impose a penny on the rates, taxes or increase charges to the public.

Mr. Skeet: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to help. Has he had an opportunity to study the code of practice that was put forward by the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland? It is a comprehensive document and seems to cover all the items that are necessary to ensure the maintenance of high standards, not only in the better zoos, but in the others.

Mr. Graham: I have read it. If those standards were maintained, they would provide what the sponsors of the Bill want. However, I am a great believer in some form of statutory back-up for any code of practice—a little bit of a stick and a carrot.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was right to pick me up when I said that there was support from all quarters for the Bill. I was careful to say that it was support, not demand. The agitation has not been such that everyone is screaming for legislation. But once the possibility of legislation emerged, people recognised that it might be the solution. However, we shall still rely on the willingness of local authorities and the public to put up with bad conditions, and the willingness of the ratepayer or taxpayer to pay.
We are anxious to make progress, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil that it is better to try to get the legislation right here than to rely on other people in another place, or even outside, having to interpret it, perhaps not carrying it out and having to go to court, and so on. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about subsection (4). In my view it is the kind of provision that would not be considered absolutely necessary by the other place.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the fundamental matter of the cost responsibility and the resource opportunity as between local authorities and the Government. That was one of the central issues on Second Reading and in Committee. Not all local authorities will want, or be able, to fulfil that responsibility. That is where the Secretary of State comes in, almost as a reserve, with the power to ensure that standards are protected. That is

the balance. More stress should be put on local rather than central responsibility. We do not want the men in Whitehall running every aspect of our lives.

Mr. Peyton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way and for the manner in which he is seeking to meet my arguments. I object to having two layers of experts. It is quite unnecessary. The Secretary of State is deeply involved in the subject matter of the Bill, anyhow. I do not believe that he would require more staff than will be required now by a combination of himself and the local authorities. He would probably need fewer staff. The total expenditure generated by the Bill would be less and the Bill's objectives would be better served if it were concentrated in the Department, instead of being divided in the rather strange way that is proposed. I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my argument.

Mr. Graham: If I have conveyed that impression, it is because I think that what the right hon. Gentleman says is very reasonable in the context of the division between local and central Government and the need not to waste resources. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) dealt with the fundamental concept here—not only of licensing, but of inspection. We do not expect local authorities to have experts who are competent to administer a zoo. When someone is needed to decide whether the standards of safety and welfare are adequate, we need an outside authority. This is where the list of independent people who are approved by the Secretary of State and sent in by him, comes in.

Mr. Skeet: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 covers a great deal of this. We have to be careful that we do not cover ground already covered by other legislation.

Mr. Crouch: I should like to take up this very point, and perhaps we shall then be able to leave it.
We have already debated this morning whether responsibility should lie at the top, with the Secretary of State, or at local authority level. I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I believe in devolution, as do the Government and the Opposition. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act came about as a result of a recommendation by the Robens committee, which advanced the idea of the Health and Safety Commission and said that it should be administered at local level. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I say that district councils are already the licensing authorities under the Pet Animals Act 1951, the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, the Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970, and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. In my view the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) are right in saying that there should be devolution to the district level, under the supervision of the Secretary of State. What is more, there is a great deal of precedent for it.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury. I recall that he dealt with that on Second Reading. He asked why we should have additional legislation when existing legislation ostensibly covered these matters. However, despite existing legislation that should cover them, we are still uneasy about certain events that have occurred. The hon. Member for Canterbury gave one or two graphic and dramatic illustrations of incidents


that had occurred. There was no question of any dereliction of duty on anyone's part. They happened despite careful attention apparently being paid to inspection and safety.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West said that his proposed amendment to clause 14 went some way towards putting a little muscle into the provisions affecting small zoos. The central objection of the Opposition to clause 14 is that it goes out of its way to take account of the existence of small zoos without in any way defining "small" or "a few", and then goes on to talk of "an inspector or inspectors".
The hon. Member for Dudley, West also said that the cost of the proposed system would be related to the size of the establishment. However, first we have to decide what is "small", what is "a few" and how many inspectors are likely to be required.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Dudley, West and to the Minister, and I came to the conclusion that the House had three options before it. It could accept the new clause, it could accept the old clause plus the amendment, or it could delete clause 14 altogether. I should much prefer the House to accept the new clause. However, if I urged the House to do that, I sense that it would be opposed, the House would divide, and time would be taken up. In the event, it would merely delay the passage of the Bill.
Hon. Members will know that the Opposition have tabled only three amendments, one of which has not been selected. We have shown our desire that the Bill should make progress by tabling as few amendments as possible. We believe that this Bill is better than no Bill. However, it can be improved.
The Minister ended his speech by saying that he and the hon. Member for Dudley, West would study new clause 2 carefully to see whether it was possible in another place to improve clause 14 along the lines suggested by the Opposition. That being so, and bearing in mind that we have had a useful and valuable debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 1

LICENSING OF ZOOS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert
'and otherwise than in a pet shop (as so defined)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 158, in clause 21, page 13, line 34, at end insert
'pet shop" means premises for whose keeping as a pet shop a licence is in force, or is required, under the Pet Animals Act 1951;'.

Mr. Blackburn: The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to make it clear that establishments where wild animals are sold as pets continue to be governed by the Pet Animals Act 1951, and not by this measure.
Amendment No. 158 defines a pet shop as premises that are licensed under the Pet Animals Act, and it seems unnecessary for such an establishment selling animals to be governed by two sets of legislation, the Pet Animals Act and this Bill. My Bill is designed to control zoos and not pet shops.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'district' and insert 'county'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in line 20, leave out 'district' and insert 'regional'.

Mr. Colvin: Earlier we discussed at some length who shall be the licensing authority. We have about exhausted the argument whether it should be the Secretary of State, but I have no doubt that we shall experience a degree of re-run in this debate.
It is accepted by the House that there should be some devolution of powers in this respect, and it appears that in his discussions with interested parties my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) came to the conclusion that the local district councils should be the licensing authorities. In my view that is a fundamental mistake. However, I shall not waste time going through all the arguments again.
I draw attention to the Second Reading debate, in which no fewer than six of the 12 hon. Members who took part expressed serious reservations about the proposal to give local authorities the task of licensing. In a fairly comprehensive document circulated to members of the Standing Committee, the RSPCA reinforced that argument. We had a fairly extensive debate on the subject in Committee, and eventually hon. Members voted five to four in favour of the proposition in the Bill. Bearing in mind the views that hon. Members expressed on Second Reading, it is clear that the two sides are fairly equally divided. By no stretch of the imagination is it a generally accepted principle that the Secretary of State should be the licensing authority and, as the Bill stands, the local authority is responsible for licensing.
The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to give the task of licensing to county councils rather than district councils. Amendment No. 6 relates to Scotland, where the licensing authorities would be the regional councils, there being no county councils in Scotland.
There are good arguments in favour of spreading slightly wider the load of work involved in licensing. There are certain dangers if district councils are to carry out this function, essentially because of the parochial nature of district councils. One of the objects in setting up the two-tier system of local government, which some people support and some, alas, regret, was to give the lower tier, the district councils, as much contact as possible with the grass roots and to keep them as small as possible to ensure that people had a say in them.
The problem—we have witnessed this with planning applications—is that some people would do anything to close zoos. A local campaign could be whipped up by the public living near a zoo, which could put considerable pressure on local councillors to affect the district council's action when deciding whether to license that zoo.
County councils are in a better position than local district councils to be impartial in the licensing of zoos. They cover a much wider aea. The area covered by a county council in which a zoo is situated would probably correspond with the number of people who visit that zoo. Spreading the costs over a wide area would be fairer than spreading them over the district council area. County


councils have greater resources than district councils. Their officers visit zoos to inspect policing and fire functions. Therefore, they could combine jobs on visits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West drew attention to the important role of zoos in education. The county councils are the education authorities. I have experience of a zoo that received help in kind from a county council because of the immense task that that zoo performed in educating people—in this instance an overspill from London—who came to the country not understanding much about the countryside. That zoo did a great job in educating those Londoners in the ways of the countryside and about wild life. Therefore, zoos have an important educational role to play. For that reason, the greater the links with county councils, the better.
I do not know what the Association of County Councils is likely to say if this proposal is agreed to, but the Association of District Councils has already said that the licensing system should be self-financing. In other words, it is rightly saying "If the Government are to impose on us an obligation to do the work, they must provide the resources." The Government have said that they are not prepared to provide the resources, but they have provided—I think wrongly—for councils to recoup their costs from the zoos concerned. I think that that is the wrong way round, but it has happened.
I suggest that district councils could be involved in a great deal of extra and unnecessarily costly work in providing people to carry out what will mainly be informal inspections. I think that such inspections could be more easily accommodated and carried out by the staff of county councils. That would also remove the parochial element, which could be a danger for a minority of zoos. That is why I sincerely hope that the House will agree to this change of functions to county councils, which cover a wider public, rather than to leave them parochially in the hands of district councils.

Mr. Skeet: This matter has been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North West (Mr. Colvin), but I should like to make some further points.
I agree with my hon. Friend about wider representation, but Parliament is putting additional responsibilities on local authorities. That means that they will have to take on more staff and find additional revenue. This year we are witnessing steep increases in rates in the counties. My experience, when I introduced a Private Member's Bill last year which would have increased local authorities' expenditure, was that the local authorities kicked violently against it.
Clause 15(5) provides:
The local authority shall secure that the amount of all the fees and other sums charged by them under this section in a year is sufficient to cover the amount of expenditure incurred by the authority in the year by virtue of this Act.
No doubt my hon. Friend had to put that subsection in because a Private Member's Bill cannot impose any responsibility on the Exchequer. That means that expenditure incurred by local authorities must be recouped from the zoos. This will be a heavy impost.
The Minister, when referring to licensing fees, said that a reasonable fee would be about £25 an hour, but inspection of a large zoo could cover two days. On top of

that there are the special inspections for which provision is made in clauses 10 and 11, which will impose heavy liabilities as well.
I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said about the responsibility coming under a county council. I, too, would prefer that, if it is to be at that level, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about its being better to be centralised on the Government.
Legislation of this type has been proposed for the past 10 years. Hon. Members have been trying to get a simple Bill covering the management of zoos on the statute book for some time. However, I favour comprehensive legislation by the Government. That is the right way to deal with this matter. Why should they put the responsibility on local authorities? When local authorities say to the Government "Having palmed these responsibilities on to us, will you provide additional money?", the Government do not want to know. They are prepared to delegate responsibility and to place burdens on local authorities, but when local authorities come back to the Government for assistance they do not want to know. That practice must cease.
I believe that comprehensive legislation would make sense. It could be based on the code of practice that is already in operation. Without being tedious, I should like to refer to the code of practice. One of the inspection requirements is that
animals must be provided with space and furniture sufficient to allow such exercise as is needed.
That is a sound point.
Another requirement is:
The accommodation and environment maintained in any building must be suitable for the survival and comfort of the animal".
I agree with that. I think that all zoos—small, medium and large—would accept that as well.
Another requirement is:
Animals must be given equipment … so that their behaviour patterns can be as normal as possible.
The code refers to food, which must be of "adequate quality", and it requires to be kept
detailed records of stock including births, deaths and disposals".
That way of operating would be simpler and less expensive than the cumbersome procedure laid down in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has introduced an important Bill with 23 clauses, but I suggest that there are simpler and easier ways of keeping down costs.
There may be difficulties, because of the timetable—we are close to the end of the Session now—in getting the Bill through the other place. Some modifications have to be made to the Bill. Is the Minister prepared to provide another day so that we can discuss the issues at greater length? Alternatively, will he leave the modifications to the House of Lords?

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: This is the first time that I have spoken on this measure. I declare two interests, especially in view of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). There is a tobacco factory in my constituency as well as a small zoo—Basildon zoo. It is run by the Basildon Aviary and Wild Life Centre Ltd. The zoo has operated in the new town successfully and happily for eight years. As far as I


am aware no animals have escaped from the zoo, nor have any complaints been made by people living in the vicinity of the zoo.
I support the amendment for a number of reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) made a strong case for changing the licensing authority from the district council to the county council.
I am concerned about the fact that we increasingly place burdens on local authorities, either district or county, and at the same time ask them to make substantial cuts in expenditure. Local authorities are driven to distraction when the House tells them to make greater savings and at the same time places burdens upon them. Whatever might be said, the cost implications of the Bill cannot totally be recouped from the organisers or proprietors of zoos.
I understand that there are about 170 zoos in Britain. The Bill will set up about that many licensing authorities. If the licensing authority is the county council rather than the district council, the number of licensing authorities will automatically be reduced.

Mr Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 333 district councils? Does he agree that if the function of licensing is left to the district councils some district councils will be licensing authorities and some will not? There will be no general build-up of expertise on zoo licensing as there will be if county councils are the licensing authorities. Most county councils would probably be licensing authorities because of the spread of zoos.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful for that intervention. The concentration of expertise that could arise if the county council is the licensing authority is the strongest argument for the amendment.
The Bill places upon the licensing authority an obligation to amass expertise in some technical areas. It would be better if that expertise were in a county authority dealing with a range of zoos, interests and difficulties. It would be better to build up experience on a county basis than on a district basis. If the licensing authority is the district council, co-ordination and liaison will be necessary and a patchiness of operation will result.
A zoo's catchment area extends further than its immediate locality. Basildon zoo draws many thousands of people each year, in the summer in particular, from a wide catchment area covering the whole of Essex. Schools in the county visit the zoo for educational purposes. Zoos have an important educational role. The education authority is the county authority, not the district authority. The liaison between educational facilities and the licensing of zoos could be valuable. I am happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Peyton: I support the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin). I make no judgment on the merits of county or district councils or about their capability to discharge their functions under the Bill. However, I would prefer the function to be exercised by county councils, for one reason—they are fewer in number. As a result, fewer authorities would be obliged to add to their organisations and less expenditure would be involved.
The Under-Secretary seemed to say that if the functions of the licensing authorities are put upon the Secretary of State a considerable addition to Government expenditure

will result, but if the duties are put upon the local authorities no important addition to expenditure will occur. That argument does not make much sense.

Mr. Monro: I shall clarify what I said earlier. Without any additional staff, my Department can cope with the present arrangements. However, if we did all the new licensing we should need additional staff. Local authorities already have experts, so that they would not have to employ additional staff. The zoos are spread throughout the country and licensing functions will not have to be performed every day, since licences run for four or six years.

Mr. Peyton: I am not accustomed to pleading the local authorities' cause in the House, but they frequently complain that, in response to requests from Government, they have to reduce their manpower to the lowest level practicable and compatible with their duties. Therefore, on any occasion when the Government see fit to add to local authorities' responsibilities, the authorities are almost certain not to have the necessary spare capacity available and will therefore have to recruit more staff. At the same time, however, the Government tell them that they must reduce their expenditure. I should very much like to know what the Minister and his Department intend to say when local authorities complain, justifiably, about the cost of discharging the additional duties, which is waved aside as negligible or non-existent.
I look forward to hearing the Government's views about the amendment, which I see as a halfway stage to what I would regard as desirable. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) can say that an amendment will be moved and accepted in another place to place responsibility for this where it properly belongs—with central Government—my attitude to the Bill will undergo an immediate change. I should also be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State finds the arguments about cost and expense sufficiently important to persuade him that there is merit in the amendment, in that fewer authorities would be obliged to recruit additional staff to discharge the duties laid upon them by the Bill. That seems to me to be a vital question.
Is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also satisfied that the supervision by local authorities of legislation such as the pet shops legislation and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act is well and adequately carried out? I should be particularly obliged if he would deal with that point. I take it that before deciding to support my hon. Friend's view that district councils were the appropriate bodies to oversee this legislation the Government looked fairly carefully at the operation of those Acts to see whether the confidence that they repose in district councils to discharge these duties was justified by the performance their duties under those Acts. I should be grateful for an assurance on that point.
As I have said, I support the amendment, not because I regard it as ideal or because I believe that county councils have some special ability that is lacking in district councils, but simply because there are fewer of them and the cost involved would therefore be rather less than it would be if the greater number of district councils were obliged to equip themselves to carry out these duties.

Mr. Monro: There is, of course, always merit in anything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil


(Mr. Peyton) supports, but I have to decide whether it is overriding merit relative to the amendment. I listened carefully to the cogent arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).
11.45 am
The short answer is that the Association of District Councils has specifically said that it is content to deal with zoo licensing, whereas the Association of County Councils is not. We therefore start off with a willing recipient for this responsibility in the Association of District Councils, whereas the Association of County Councils takes the opposite view. We must therefore consider the matter in that light, together with the important point put forward earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), that district councils already have responsibility for animal welfare licensing and therefore have some built-in expertise, before coming to deal with zoos, as I hope they will in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked me whether the Government were prepared to make another day available for the Bill. I make two points, both of which I am sure he appreciates. First, it would be up to the Leader of the House to decide whether there was any time for a Private Member's Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, that is extremely rare. Secondly, if we were to bank on another Friday, we all know the hazards of Friday operations. Therefore, I certainly would not wish to proceed to another Friday, when we might then find no time available for the Bill at all.

Mr. Skeet: There have been occasions when additional time has been given, which has been fully appreciated by the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State appreciates the importance of the Bill. He has said that he would like to see legislation on the statute book to deal with the management of zoos. If the matter is important in his mind, he could probably persuade my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that additional time should be allocated.

Mr. Monro: I am afraid that I cannot look forward hopefully to another Friday, bearing in mind what can happen on Fridays, and I would certainly not expect the Government to give further time for a Private Member's Bill, however important. As has been said on earlier amendments, however, there will be an opportunity for another place to consider what has been said today, and we have some time yet to go through a substantial number of amendments.
We discussed in detail in Committee whether the district councils or the county councils should be responsible. Bearing in mind the responsibilities that district councils already have, and the local availability of officials with experience in many of the matters that would be involved in zoo licensing, it is my firm view, and, I believe, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), that we should not change this part of the Bill.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will answer the particular point that I raised. Has he satisfied himself, since the introduction of the Bill, that the district councils perform their duties under the pet shops legislation and the

Dangerous Wild Animals Act in a sufficiently satisfactory way to encourage confidence in placing these extra duties upon them now?

Mr. Monro: I have no reason to believe that they do not fulfil those duties effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Peyton: I was asking for an assurance that before imposing these new duties upon local authorities the Government have satisfied themselves that those same authorities discharge their duties under two rather similar pieces of legislation in an adequate manner. If my hon. Friend cannot give that assurance, I believe that before the Bill goes to another place the matter should be the subject of some inquiry and he should then give an assurance that he is so satisfied.

Mr. Monro: There has been a great deal of consultation with local authorities during the evolution of the Bill. I am satisfied that they are able to fulfil their present functions, and I have no knowledge that they are not doing so.

Mr. Colvin: I have listened with great interest to what has been said by hon. Members in response to my proposition that county councils should become the licensing authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) made the very important point that the local authorities, whichever they are, now find themselves as essentially piggy-in-the-middle in this affair between the Secretary of State and the industry.
The argument, of course, put forward by the Under-Secretary of State that the Association of District Councils has agreed that district councils should become the licensing authorities, while the Association of County Councils has not similarly agreed, is not really valid. The district councils have known ever since Lord Craigton produced his Bill in another place, of which the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) was originally a rewrite, that they are likely to become the licensing authorities. So they have no doubt given the matter some considerable thought, and with the undertaking from the Secretary of State that in the Bill as it stands no costs will fall upon them, why should it matter? They will not be out of pocket in any way. That is what the district councils say, so they are quite prepared to take up this task.
It has never really been suggested seriously that the county councils should be the licensing authorities. If we went along to any authority now and said "We think that you should take up this task", I think that we would find that there would be a very different answer.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his statement that the county councils have never considered that this form of licensing is in their domain because it has always been aimed at the local authority? Does he agree that we had a full debate on the issue in Committee, in which seven hon. Members took part, that the AMA has been consulted every step of the way as the Bill has proceeded through the House, that the AMA has confirmed in writing that it will accept the responsibilities contained in the Bill and that the county councils have said that they are not able to accept those responsibilities and want no part in the implementation of the Bill?

Mr. Colvin: I would not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend said, but it has never really been seriously put to the county councils that they should be the licensing authorities.

Mr. Blackburn: It has.

Mr. Colvin: If it had been put in that sense—this is the seventh attempt to get a zoo licensing Bill on to the statute book-in previous Bills, and if it had been suggested that the county councils might be the licensing authorities, we would have had a very different reaction from the county councils. There have been plenty of arguments put forward as to why they should be the authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) made some pertinent points about the patchiness of the operation of licensing if district councils were the licensing authorities. I note the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in connection with the operation of the pet shops legislation and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, for which district councils are responsible at present—although the argument has been used that because they are responsible for those Acts they should have responsibility for zoos—is not valid. Reports reaching me indicate that local district councils are not really very good at administering that legislation. If reports are true that they are not good at that task, why should they be any better at administering the Bill when it becomes an Act?
That leaves a fundamental question in our minds and I am not really satisfied with the answers that have been given. I feel that this issue of licensing functions is of considerable importance, and I should like, therefore, to press my amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 43.

Division No. 220]
[11.55 am


AYES


Braine, Sir Bernard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bright, Graham



Colvin, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Grylls, Michael
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.


Peyton, Rt Hon John





NOES


Berry, Hon Anthony
Litherland, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
McQuarrie, Albert


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Mates, Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Mayhew, Patrick


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Cope, John
Monro, Hector


Crouch, David
Nelson, Anthony


English, Michael
Race, Reg


Fell, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stradling Thomas, J.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Graham, Ted
Waller, Gary


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Wellbeloved, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wheeler, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)



Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Mr. John G. Blackburn and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

APPLICATION FOR LICENCE

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'zoo' to 'shall' in line 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 47, in clause 6, page 5, line 21, after 'with', insert 'subsections (1), (3) and (4) of'.
No. 68, in clause 10, page 6, line 24, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 77, in page 7, line 9, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 78, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 81, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 83, in page 7, line 26, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 84, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 89, in page 7, line 44, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 126, in clause 15, page 9, line 28, leave out 'proprietors' and insert 'operators'.
No. 130, in page 9, line 36, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 151, in clause 19, page 12, line 16, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 159, in clause 21, page 13, leave out lines 35 and 36.
No. 164, in clause 22, page 14, line 15, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.

Mr. Blackburn: Amendment No. 8 is a drafting amendment. It does not affect in any way the procedure for submitting an application. I commend it to the House. If the amendment is approved by the House, amendment No. 47 will fall.

Mr. Proctor: Although this is a drafting amendment, will my hon. Friend briefly explain why there is a change from the word "proprietor" to "operator" throughout the Bill? I think that I am right in saying that the 14 amendments have that effect throughout the Bill. Clause 21(1), which is the interpretation clause, defines what a proprietor is, but it does not define what an operator is. Is it my hon. Friend's intention in another place to define what an operator is, as the Bill defines a proprietor? I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's brief comments.

Mr. Blackburn: When the Bill appeared before the Committee the word "maintains" was used ill the definition clause and was changed to "operates". It is as a result of that amendment in Committee that these consequential amendments are proposed. Almost certainly the word "operator" would be defined in the Bill in another place, although I cannot give an assurance about that. That is extremely important, particularly in view of the amendments, which refer to the operator.

Mr. Colvin: Grouped in the amendments is amendment No. 47 which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member


for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) to that amendment. It places the obligation on a zoo owner to go through the procedure of readvertising in local and national papers in the event of applying for a licence or being required to make a full application when it is due to be renewed, and also to go through the business of giving notice.
If the local authority has asked the applicant to make an application, it knows that an application is coming. Therefore, to require that notice be given once more under the terms of the Bill is total superfluous. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the requirement to readvertise is also superfluous.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on that matter and say that he will reconsider it before the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. Blackburn: Amendment No. 47 is designed to reduce the opportunities of interested parties to make representations related to licence extensions. If the House decides to accept amendment No. 8, amendment No. 47 will be a tidying amendment. The Bill would make it an offence to maintain a zoo without a licence. If the zoo is maintained without a licence, the proprietor would be committing an offence.
I emphasise that in Committee it was suggested that "maintain" was not the appropriate word—I believe by my hon. Fiend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin). The dictionary definition of "maintain" is:
To cause to continue to keep in repair".
That is why I have put down the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

GRANT OR REFUSAL OF LICENCE

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'members of' and insert 'persons on'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 87, in clause 10, page 7, line 40, leave out 'members of' and insert 'persons on'.

Mr. Blackburn: These are drafting amendments to leave out "member of" and insert "persons on" in the provision relating to the list drawn up by the Secretary of State of persons who will carry out the inspection.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 25, leave out from 'authority' to 'adequate' in line 28 and insert
'may refuse to grant a licence for a zoo if they are not satisfied that the standards of accommodation, staffing or management are'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 27, leave out from 'to' to end of line 30 and insert
'standards specified by the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 9 of this Act and for the time being in force.'.

Mr. Blackburn: The amendment aims to restore the discretion in the original drafting to issue a licence to a zoo even though certain areas within it are subject to conditions. It leaves the discretion with the local authority to grant a conditional licence rather than close the zoo.

Mr. Skeet: What criteria would the local authority use?

Mr. Blackburn: The collection of animals would be inspected by someone on the Secretary of State's list. As a result of inspection by qualified people with knowledge of exotic animals, a licence could be issued, which might be conditional. The condition would be supervised by the local authority instead of the zoo being closed. The provision would allow a zoo to have a licence on the condition that it achieved a high standard.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 3, line 36, leave out from 'zoo' to end of line 38.
The amendment deals with the employment of staff. It removes the provision whereby a local authority may refuse to grant a licence if the applicant proposes to employ a person as a keeper in a zoo that is not yet established. The machinery would operate only rarely. The clause allows a local authority to refuse a licence under certain circumstances. A zoo that may be opening may not advertise for keepers until it has a licence. At the stage when staff are employed, action could be taken over people disqualified from doing such work. The provision is supported by the zoo industry.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I understand that some of the offences under subsection (5) would be exceedingly technical and would not reflect on the knowledge or honesty of the person concerned. I have heard of a case where a bird was sold, through an oversight, without the ring on its leg, yet that offence, no doubt against the Protection of Birds Act, would disqualify the person from keeping a zoo or being employed in one.
12.15 pm
The criterion should not be whether a person has been convicted under the Acts listed in subsection (5), but whether he is trustworthy to supervise or otherwise to work in a zoo. Surely that is what we are aiming at. It is carrying things too far to say that a person would be disqualified if he had committed an offence under any of the Acts.
I recognise that the provision is that the local authority "may" refuse and not "must" refuse, but local authorities have no expertise in keeping zoos. It would not be correct for them to judge whether a person was suitable if he had committed a technical offence under one of the many Acts listed. Other criteria should be used to judge whether a person is suitable. It is illogical for someone who knows nothing about a subject to judge whether an expert is suitable, even though Members of Parliament constantly have to.

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) has not had the advantage of being on the Committee. Under clause 8 we have the Secretary of State's list, which makes the Bill different from other Bills. We are talking not of district council chief executives, clerks or minor bureaucrats who have no knowledge of exotic animals, but about people who have signified to the Secretary of State that they are willing to carry out inspections—people with professional knowledge of the administration of zoos, particularly veterinary surgeons.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I am grateful for that guidance. That may be what was discussed in Committee, but clause 4 mentions only the local authority and does not refer to


a list. No doubt the local authority will take advice from those on the list, but, in the last resort, it can do what it pleases. Recently, in London, a local authority with all sorts of expertise at its disposal cast it away and made its own decisions.
A local authority may employ a veterinary surgeon who does not know much about wild animals, or it may disregard the advice that it properly and correctly receives, which it is at liberty to do. One can reasonably assume that most local authorities are not absolutely barmy and will take expert advice, but we must get the legislation right, so that a barmy local authority would not make too much difference.
I do not believe that a technical offence by a potential employee under one of the 10 Acts listed is a sound basis for refusing to grant a licence to a zoo.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 41, leave out from 'animals' to end of line 44.
The amendment is somewhat technical, I shall, therefore, explain it. It does not change the position of people who have convictions which have become spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. There is no question of local authorities being able to refuse a licence for a zoo because the applicant, a keeper, or some other person listed in subsection (4), at some time in the past committed an offence under one of the Acts listed. The reason for the amendment is that the reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is superfluous. The 1974 Act spells out the legal consequences when a conviction becomes spent. There is no need to spell them out again in subsequent enactments. The reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was originally put in for guidance, but legal advice is that confusion could arise if specific mention is made here of the earlier Act when it is not mentioned in other Acts. The amendment also removes an inconsistency within the Bill. Although clause 4 mentions the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, there is no reference to that Act in clause 17, under which a conviction may be a ground for revoking a licence. Given a choice between removing a superfluous provision from clause 4 and adding a superfluous provision to clause 17, it seems more sensible to amend clause 4 as here proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 3, line 41, after 'animals', insert
'and is prohibited by the court which convicted him from keeping animals'.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) has already drawn the House's attention to the list of 10 Acts in the Bill which relate to convictions under clause 4. The purpose of my amendment is to make clear whether the opinion of those passing judgment is that persons tried for offences under those Acts should be allowed to keep a zoo again.
As the Bill is drafted, or even if it is amended by the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), which deletes clause 4(2)(c), it is unsatisfactory. The Bill would allow a local authority to refuse a licence if any offence had been committed under any of the 10 Acts by anyone in the zoo, be he the owner, the manager or a director. I am glad to see that the question of employees has now been deleted, so that argument falls.
In Committee we debated whether that obligation should be mandatory or whether the discretion should be left to the local authority. I am glad to report that in Committee we substituted the discretionary element in the word "may" for the nasty word "shall". Offences under which people could be found guilty under the 10 Acts may be technical or administrative. They usually are and involve no cruelty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has drawn attention to the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967. As far as I know, only one conviction under those Acts has involved a zoo. The other Acts to which my hon. Friend referred were the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964. My research has shown that only one conviction under those Acts involved a zoo. It is important to draw attention to the statement made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). He gave the wrong impression in his speech—no doubt quite inadvertently—that there were many convictions under those Acts involving zoos. He said:
Under the Protection of Animals Acts and the Protection of Birds Acts, taken together, there have been nearly 1,000 prosecutions in any one year".—[Official Report, 6 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 558.]
That may be true, but I can find only two out of those 1,000 prosecutions that involved zoos. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden suggests that those 1,000 prosecutions were all zoos, as that was what the debate was about. I should place on record that that is not so and that zoos have a good record.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In this area this provision is as much to protect the zoo from someone whose record in handling animals is unsatisfactory as it is a licensing requirement. It is important, because if someone has been convicted under these Acts he is not the sort of person that a zoo should be encouraged to employ.

Mr. Colvin: I take that point. It reinforces what I have said. The problem with employees has been deleted by the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West. The time to decide whether someone is unsuitable to run a zoo is when he is convicted and sentenced on charges under the 10 Acts. If it is warranted that he should be prevented from running a zoo again—

Mr. Bennett: Surely that is hypothetical, because someone might have been convicted under one of these Acts but at that stage there may be no evidence that he might want to run a zoo in the future. Therefore the court cannot be expected to predict that in future there is a remote possibility that that person might want to run a zoo. That is asking the court to consider a hypothetical question. It would be difficult for the court. It is logical to assume that if a person is convicted of an offence, that is an indication that he is an unsuitable person.

Mr. Colvin: I do not know why a court could not add a rider, because the sort of offence committed may relate, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) says, to the future running of a zoo, but that is hypothetical. Under the various offences that can he committed under the 10 different Acts there must surely be examples when a court can decide whether a person should be permitted to run a zoo.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am puzzled about this, because I do not think that a court could be expected, or would be permitted, to anticipate


what might happen. Any court dealing with an offence under other Acts would not be entitled to assume what might happen in the future. Therefore, I am rather puzzled that the word "and" is in this amendment. If it had been "or", I might have understood; but with "and" it is not likely that the courts will put that rider in, so it will not happen.

Mr. Colvin: I take my hon. Friend's point. But it is up to the prosecution to make sure that the rider is added if there is any suggestion that at any future date the accused person may run a zoo. It also applies to persons already running and involved with zoos.

Mr. Bennett: Clearly someone who has been convicted of an offence under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act would seem to be the least person who is suitable to run a zoo. There is no way in which the court could add such a rider, because it has no other powers to say that someone involved in an offence under that Act should not be a keeper of animals or a person who looks after animals.

Mr. Colvin: I accept what the hon. Member has said. I should like very much to hear what the promoter of the Bill has to say on this matter. I think that there could be added the simple phrase:
and is prohibited by the court from keeping animals.
It would not make sense if the word "and" were changed to "or".

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I should like to reinforce what has just been said. It seems to me that the prohibition goes far too wide.
What I have particularly in mind is that any person who has been convicted of any offence under the 10 enactments mentioned in subsection (5), which may have absolutely nothing to do with the sort of employment that he has in a zoo, is nevertheless not allowed to be employed. Therefore, a person who has not perhaps observed the measurements of stables under the Riding Establishments Act, and so on, but is now employed in looking after lions and tigers in a zoo, could cause the prohibition of that zoo by virtue of his employment there. He could lose his job—an entirely different job from that which he had previously—and he would not be allowed to be employed in anything connected with zoos again, for reasons which seem wholly invalid.
I believe that the amendment cures this problem, because it gives a general indication that the sort of offences which the local authority may take into consideration in deciding whether so-and-so can be employed in a zoo are offences against animals, offences of cruelty and ill treatment of animals. That is the sort of offence at which we wish to strike. Those are the sorts of people who ought not to be employed in zoos.
Someone who has been unsuitably employed in the office and has forgotten to fill in the annual return under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 can be prevented from ever getting a job in a zoo, and if the zoo can thereupon be closed down because the local authority may wish to close it down for reasons other than this and can find the excuse for doing so in this way, that seems wholly wrong. Unless the amendment is accepted, I

believe that the clause goes much too far. The subsections shut out unreasonably the liberty of the individual to work. I believe that they put into the hands of local authorities a power that could be abused.
As I said in my last intervention, while no one is entitled to suppose that they will abuse their power in some unfair or unconstitutional way, they ought not to be given the opportunity to do so by the laws that we pass.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the Bill as drafted there is an opportunity for people to be virtually found guilty twice of the same crime? Surely that is inconsistent with British law.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I agree. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my argument. It is repugnant to our system of operating, and also repugnant to our trade union traditions, that any convicted person should never be able to get a job, although no moral obloquy attaches to whatever crime he has committed. That situation would be cured by the amendment indicating that the person was unsuitable to deal with animals. That kind of person is not wanted in zoos. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) will be able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Blackburn: Those who have listened to the debate will obviously be attracted by the powerful arguments that have been presented on the question of individual liberty in relation to a conviction for some of these minor offences and the prospect of being disqualified from following a chosen career. I am sympathetic. However, it would be a denial of the merits of and the motives behind the Bill if I did not also associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
At the end of the day we are concerned not only about the zoo itself but that the right people should be engaged in the profession. I commend warmly and sincerely this amendment. It is of such merit that a Division on the matter would be foolish. The amendment will be examined seriously. It will be part of a clause that appears in another place. I give an assurance, not only as the promoter of the Bill, but on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State, for whom I believe I can speak, that the matter will be taken on board for further consideration in another place.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the proposal will be redrafted in another place? I am sure that, as it stands, it is completely impracticable.

Mr. Blackburn: I am able to give that assurance. That is one of my reasons for commending that the amendment should not go to a Division. So much merit is contained in both sides of the argument that a consensus is, I believe, possible. The provision will be redrafted and will appear in another place.

Mr. Colvin: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

PERIOD AND CONDITIONS OF LICENCE

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 5, line 13, at end insert—
'(7) The authority shall not attach to a licence a condition which relates only or primarily to the health, safety or welfare of persons working in the zoo.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 82, 160, and 161.

Mr. Monro: On Second Reading, and subsequently in Committee, hon. Members investigated in some detail a possible overlap between the Health and Safety Executive and the licensing arrangements. We have given the matter great consideration. A promise was given that we would bring forward on Report an amendment to reduce this overlap as much as possible. The Health and Safety Executive operates under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It has duties to fulfil that cannot be overtaken by other legislation. Following consultation, the amendment, together with the subsequent amendments, reflects the attitude that we adopt towards this difficult situation.
The inspections and licensing system provided for in the Bill will cover all these aspects of zoo management, where the arrangements for keeping the animals and displaying them to the public affect the health, safety and welfare of the people in the zoo or living near it. Where the arrangements relate solely or primarily to the health, safety and welfare of people working in the zoo—in the carpentry shops, cafeterias and elsewhere—they will be dealt with under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Compliance with the conditions of a zoo licence does not automatically mean that all the requirements of that Act have been met.
The guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State will set out the procedure for ensuring that the conditions attached to licences by local authorities are not incompatible with the Health and Safety Executive's requirements. Local authorities will be asked to send to the HSE copies of applications for licences, copies of the licences issued and the conditions attached to them, as well as the inspectors' reports.
The HSE will therefore be kept informed about conditions in the zoo and will be able to alert the local authority if it appears that requirements imposed on the zoo under the zoo licensing procedure are incompatible with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Any standards specified by the Secretary of State will be formulated in consultation with the HSE as well as organisations representing zoos and persons on the list.
These arrangements will mean that zoos are inspected by people who are expert in dealing with animals kept in zoos and who know what sorts of arrangements will protect animals and people from each other. But areas in which the HSE has exclusive competence, procedures to be followed in operating machinery, or handling chemicals, features of the zoo which arise from its being a place of work rather than from the special feature that wild animals are kept there, will continue to be dealt with by the people with the relevant expertise.
The important point is that the guidance that the Secretary of State will give to the local authorities and discuss with the HSE will make certain that there is no

overlap of responsibilities. That will be to the benefit of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, to the 1974 Act, and to the HSE. This is an understandable compromise, which we must accept in terms of the 1974 Act, but, because of the guidance, I hope that any overlap will be kept to the minimum. There will be frequent discussions between the HSE and local authorities on licensing, so again there will be co-ordination between the licensing authority and the HSE, which will avoid difficulties for the zoos.

Mr. Skeet: This is a reasonable amendment, and the House should support it. The avoidance of overlap is an excellent idea, but the Minister confines it to staff, who are already covered by their contract. Should he not include the public, who are covered by section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? They are also covered in tort, because they are invitees. Since, in amendment No. 43, he has taken the step of removing one of the pieces of overlap by adding a new subsection (7) to clause 5, why does not my hon. Friend go a step further and say that the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964, which affect cruelty to animals, should also be included, in the same way as he has included the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act?
Having looked through the legislation that covers zoos—there are 36 pieces of legislation, including statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament—I wonder whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that he has gone through all the lists and combed out all the overlaps. This would be the most convenient place to do so. If, as I assume, that has not been done, I hope that an assurance will be given that when the Bill reaches another place the matter will be properly considered.

Mr. Crouch: This part of the Bill and, in particular, the amendment are of great interest to me, because two of my constituents were killed in the pursuit of their occupation as keepers in a zoo. Moreover, two of my constituents were killed outside the zoo by an escaping animal.
I accept the meaning of the amendment, but I wonder whether the Minister believes that it fully clears up where the responsibility lies for the safety of persons working in zoos. Does that rest solely with the Health and Safety Executive, and is not made a condition of the licence granted under the operation of the Bill?
I am worried about clause 5(3)(a), which deals with the
precautions to be taken against the escape of animals, and steps to be taken in the event of any escape or unauthorised release".
I hope that I am not out of order in going back at this stage and asking my hon. Friend whether that paragraph is covered by the Health and Safety Executive or by the licence and the inspection under this legislation.
I want the Bill to ensure the proper safekeeping and healthy keeping of animals, and the safety of those who work with the animals in the zoos, of those who visit the zoos, and of people outside them. I am sure that we all want that, but I want to be certain that there is no misunderstanding after the Bill reaches the statute book about where those responsibilities lie. When the inspection takes place, the inspector may say that he is not concerned about the matters that particularly concern me—the precautions that need to be taken to prevent the escape of animals and the procedures that should be observed in looking after the animals, including feeding them.
The coroner's report and subsequent investigation and inquiry into the deaths that occurred in my constituency revealed that the procedures adopted were perhaps not the best of those recommended by zoo authorities for the handling, feeding, and cleaning out of the cage of a dangerous animal such as a tiger.
I know that there is nothing in the Bill about a code of practice or the procedures that should be followed, but I hope that when the Bill reaches the statute book the Secretary of State, with his list of inspectors and experts, will also have to help him—where hitherto there has been a vacuum—the guidance of zoo authorities about the best procedures for the handling, care and treatment of exotic and dangerous animals.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rightly referred to the tragedies that took place in his constituency and the deaths that were caused by faulty procedures. I, too, have a constituent who was badly injured in that zoo by a tiger. It is evident that at one time there was lax control there.
I rise not to recall unnecessarily those unfortunate matters, but to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), who said that the public are protected in tort because they are invitees. So one would think, and as a general proposition of law that would appear to be sensible.
My constituent nearly lost one of her arms, and it is permanently damaged. She had great difficulty in obtaining her legal rights, which were contested bitterly by the owners of the zoo for many years. In the end she achieved satisfaction, but that would not have been possible had she not had the means necessary to sustain a long and expensive law suit.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend will recall the case of Ryland v Fletcher, where a dangerous animal was brought on to property. It escaped, and the owner was held responsible. If a dangerous animal is brought on to property and it escapes, there is an action in common law. What is more, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 the public are amply safeguarded, as are the staff.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that well-known case. However, the law can be a little complex. On the occasion to which I referred, the animal had not escaped. It was still in its cage. But that did not stop it inflicting severe injuries on my constituent.
Although, as a general proposition, what my hon. Friend says is true, I should like the Minister's assurance that, before the Bill leaves another place, he will take every precaution to see that members of the public are well protected not only by common law, which does not seem adequate in all cases, but by the existing legislation specified in the Bill.

Mr. Monro: There are two lines of approach in the Bill. We have to consider the safety of the public and the staff working in zoos. Equally important is the welfare of the animals in zoos. Every means possible must be brought to bear to achieve those dual objectives. Naturally, when discussing the Health and Safety Executive it is important to know where we stand and where there may be some overlapping of responsibilities.
The responsibility for the staff in a zoo rests with the employer. Through him, the HSE is completely involved. The creation of licensing authorities will in no way alter the arrangements between the employer and his staff and the safety that he provides for them. That is a clear responsibility which rests upon the HSE.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rightly referred to the sad events involving his constituents at his local zoo. The HSE has been equally concerned. Notices have been served on the zoo to strengthen and heighten the perimeter fencing, and of course there have been consultations with the proprietor. As a result, I hope that there is some feeling of greater assurance among my hon. Friend's constituents about the zoo. The HSE will of course continue to carry out its responsibilities for these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) asked me to double check all the legislation bearing on these matters. I give him an absolute assurance that we shall make certain that we have it as clear as possible. It will be looked at carefully in another place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) raised an important point. We are sorry to hear about his constituent's accident. Even after this legislation, we cannot guarantee that there will not be similar accidents. It may be that such events would still be subject to a law suit and would not come under this legislation. If there were a breach of the licence regarding cages, fences and other safety arrangements, the zoo would be subject to legal proceedings. I do not want to be involved in the legal complications. A visitor to the zoo may still have to bring a law suit. I shall ask my officials for detailed advice on the matter and will write to my hon. Friend. If necessary, I shall ensure that the matter is considered in another place. I should like to meet his point if at all possible.

Mr. Skeet: To beat, ill-treat and terrify an animal is an offence under the Protection of Animals Acts. Should my hon. Friend not include that aspect when considering this point about the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? Is he prepared to include it now, or to give an undertaking that it will be brought in in another place?

Mr. Monro: I cannot give an assurance now to bring it in, but I give an absolute assurance to look at it carefully. I am anxious to get it right. I have been apprehensive throughout about the possibility of overlap and anything such as my hon. Friend mentioned getting through the net.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

RENEWAL OF LICENCE

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 5, line 27, after 'of', insert 'or withdrawn'.
One of the important features of the Bill is the care and welfare of animals. When a zoo is refused a licence, a period of grace is allowed for the running down of the stock. Amendment No. 48 would have the effect of granting this facility if an application is withdrawn. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 5, line 28, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
The amendment would provide a period of grace of six months, that is consistent with other similar circumstances. Those concerned with animals agree that six months should be sufficient for the disposal of the stock of a collection. In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has made a move. However, I wonder whether he could go a little further. He said that those concerned with animals agree that six months should be sufficient. That is a rather sweeping assertion of a kind which all too frequently one hears in this place. There are those in the animal world and in my constituency who argue with conviction and force that the period should be 12 months. I accept that my hon. Friend is taking a step in the right direction and that he cannot change it now, but will he consider further whether the period should be extended beyond what he has proposed?

1 pm

Mr. Blackburn: The issue has been the subject of much discussion. My right hon. Friend's argument has much merit. However, an appeal against the granting of a licence involves a period of grace. A further six months is granted after the final decision on the appeal. An unscrupulous zoo keeper could take advantage of an extension beyond six months. There is merit in reviewing the matter. However, my amendment takes a step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I appreciate and applaud the way in which the Bill's promoter accepts the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). However, the promoter's argument that the time granted is only that after an appeal has been decided is not fair, because arrangements could not be made to dispose of the stock until the appeal had been decided. It could be premature to do that. If the stock were disposed of before the appeal, the purpose of the appeal would disappear. How long an appeal takes should not be taken into consideration when deciding whether it is possible to extend the period beyond six months.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 5, line 31, at end add
'; and the local authority shall take reasonable steps to secure that the holder of the licence is notified in writing of the extension.'.
The amendment follows amendments Nos. 48 and 49 by placing a responsibility on local authorities to inform the licence holder when an extension of the licence has been granted. If a zoo if refused a licence, or a licence is withdrawn, the licensing authority will inform the zoo that a period of grace has been granted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

SECRETARY OF STATE'S LIST

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page
6, line 3, leave out 'such' and insert
'the presidents of the British Veterinary Association, the National Federation of Zoological Gardens and the National Zoological Association and with such other'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
Government amendment No. 58.
No. 59, in page 6, line 5, leave out
'qualified to inspect animals in'
and insert
'with experience of management of'.
No. 61, in page 6, line 7, at end insert
'who, if consulted as a list shall be equally balanced between veterinary surgeons and practitioners and persons experienced in zoo management'.'.

Mr. Monro: Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 follow discussions with interested organisations and the industry in general. They are interested in the compilation of the Secretary of State's list. The organisations are keen to ensure that
the presidents of the British Veterinary Association the National Federation of Zoological Gardens and the National Zoological Association
are consulted with others whom the Secretary of State thinks fit to consult. That will ensure that we have expert advice.
I hope that Government amendments Nos. 57 and 58 will be acceptable not only to the House but to the zoo industry, as they were drafted at the latter's request. Amendment No. 59, however, is overtaken by amendment No. 58, which covers the point. Amendment No. 61 seems to imply that the list might be consulted as a body, which might bring together 50 or 100 people to discuss a particular issue. That is not what we envisaged and perhaps was not the intention of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment. I believe, however, that the two Government amendments will be to the advantage of everybody.

Mr. Colvin: I was happy to hear the words of the Under-Secretary of State, as one of the main areas of concern throughout the proceedings on the Bill so far has been the worry that those who really have experience of running zoos would in no way be consulted on an ongoing basis, nor have any say about who should be on the list of inspectors set up by the Secretary of State. What my hon. Friend has said, therefore, represents a great step in the right direction in that it removes one major worry.
The Government amendments, however, propose only the right of consultation. There is still the problem of including in the list people with experience in zoo management, which I believe is extremely important. The bodies included in the list read out by my hon. Friend are very important in the industry, but they do not encompass the whole of the industry. It was pointed out earlier that there are 177 zoos in this country. The combined membership of the National Federation of Zoological Gardens and the National Zoological Association amounts to 80 members. There is, therefore, still a large section of the industry which may not be consulted in the way in which those bodies will be consulted. I therefore hope that in the course of the Bill's passage from here to another place, the Under-Secretary of State and the promoter of the Bill will give serious consideration to including in the Secretary of State's list someone with experience in the management of zoos.
The proposals before us restore some of the balance, which was the other concern expressed by the zoo industry and which forms the basis of my amendment No. 61. There is a general worry that if the Secretary of State's list were any way unbalanced, decisions would tend to be partial rather than impartial. The two Government


amendments, however, will allay many of those fears and I hope that we shall see a list that is not only efficient but well balanced and covering all interests.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a further, minor point. Amendment No. 57 refers to the presidents of the bodies mentioned in the amendment. I think that he should perhaps think again about whether the presidents are the right people to consult on these matters. In my experience, presidents are generally titular heads with perhaps less experience of the day-to-day running of the undertaking involved than, say, the chairmen. So perhaps he might like to consider adding the words "or chairmen" to amendment No. 57. It seems that by plumping for presidents he has really rather narrowed the market.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Subsection (1A) of amendment No. 58 states:
The surgeons and practitioners shall have experience of animals of kinds which are kept in zoos".
Is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State satisfied that that is superior to or clearer in its effect than the original wording of clause 8:
(in each case with experience of exotic animals)"?
I do not know whether "exotic" is a term of art and closely defined or whether it merely means the sort of animals that we do not normally see in the United Kingdom. If it has the second meaning and refers to animals that are unusual, it seems to provide a better definition than the Government's amendment. Many zoos have the most ordinary animals in them, especially in children's parks, where there are often ponies and goats, which some of us could have experience of without being competent to say, for example, what was wrong with a macaw. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the definition in amendment No. 58, to which I have referred with a view to deciding whether it is superior to and clearer in its meaning than "exotic"?
Secondly, I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) said about presidents. The president of societies such as those that we have in mind usually turns out to be the Duke of Edinburgh. I do not know whether the Duke would wish to devote a great deal of his time to the inspection of zoos and carrying out the purposes of this measure. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he does not have to do that?

Mr. Peyton: I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has at least moved in the right direction. I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin). I cannot resist the opportunity of saying that in elaborating upon the duties of the Secretary of State the Minister makes it clear that a national aspect is involved. I repeat that my objections to the Bill would be removed almost at a stroke if the Government's view were modified and the local authorities were not to be given all the responsibility.
I wish to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) that if his Bill should fail to reach the statute book the main culprit will be the Secretary of State for the Environment. I do not doubt that at the back of it all is the Treasury, which for doctrinal reasons has come to a conclusion that is inappropriate for this measure.

Mr. Monro: I realise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has strong objections to local authority licensing. I do not know the strength of

support that he has throughout the House, but it is clear that he has some supporters. I should like to do everything possible to enable the Bill's supporters to take my right hon. Friend with them and to achieve their objective of putting the Bill on the statute book.
However, there are limits to what would be a fairly fundamental change. Much as I should like to say that I shall reconsider the matter, I cannot envisage a major change from local authority licensing to the Secretary of State's licensing, such as my right hon. Friend would wish. If there is any way in which I could reduce the burden on local authorities, I should be only too glad to adopt it if that would meet my right hon. Friend's wishes.
1.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) was gracious about accepting the amendment. There is much common ground between us. We both accept that in the list, which will consist of two parts, we must have experts in zoo management. I also appreciate that there are not all that many experts in zoo management and that it will not be as simple to draw up a list of those experts as it will be to do so on the veterinary side, on which there is a comparatively large number of highly qualified, experienced vets.

Mr. Colvin: On that same argument rests our case for not leaving that responsibility in the hands of local authorities. It is difficult to find anyone with proper experience of the running of zoos. That is another good argument for leaving the matter in the Secretary of State's capable hands.

Mr. Monro: I note what my hon. Friend has said. The amendment provides that people on the list must advise on the management of zoos generally. We have taken that matter on board through discussions with the industry and the important speeches made by my hon. Friend on Second Reading and in detail in Committee.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West and for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) referred to presidents. That is a legal term. We would not expect the president to be the only person whom one would consult. It is a way of saying that one would consult the association, which might have a director-general, a general secretary or chairman who could give advice. We would not be too hard and fast and inflexible about who would be consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the drafting change relative to exotic animals. In a way, he answered his own point. The new drafting would cover the point that he makes about farms in zoos, a corner for domestic farm animals such as cattle, sheep and lambs, which no one could call exotic, but which would come within the definition of animals likely to be found in a zoo. That is more flexible and gives greater opportunity for bringing in farm animals and other animals normally found in this country which could not be classed as exotic. Therefore, that is a clarification and gives greater flexibility, which is an improvement in the drafting.

Mr. Peyton: I wish to take my hon. Friend back to the point that I made and to which he responded with great courtesy and patience. I do not want to exhaust his patience, but I should like to ask him whether he could go further.
I appreciate that, on a Friday afternoon, my hon. Friend does not have much opportunity to discuss the matter with


colleagues. I would appreciate it if he would give me an undertaking to review the question of who should be the licensing authority, to receive representations from the people engaged in that business and to see whether his arguments about the costs being neglible for local authorities, but high for him, hold water. I do not believe that they do. If he would undertake to have realistic consultations with the industry on that point, my attitude to the Bill would change altogether.

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend is pressing hard on a major issue. I appreciate the strength of his feelings. Over the past 18 months we have consulted in great depth with everyone involved, and Lord Craigton has done so for many years in another place. However, at the end of the day, decisions have to be made. The Secretary of State came down firmly on the side of local authority licensing and, as we agreed in the Bill, by district councils. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's strongly held views to the attention of the Secretary of State, as I always want to meet his wishes as far as I can, but I cannot hold out a great deal of hope for a major change of policy in another place.

Mr. Colvin: Surely this raises the whole question of the Government's attitude to the Bill. In Committee, the Minister, by an astute move, got rid of the money resolution. Cost is of major concern to the industry, particularly for small zoos. It has been our consistent argument that if the financial burden were carried by the Department of the Environment it would be peanuts. Indeed, the Minister questions the fact that the inspection fees might be as much as £1,000. However, the costs could put a small zoo out of business. Further, there is a serious likelihood that there will be repeated informal and special inspections, which could impose an additional burden on zoos.
The money resolution provided for reasonable fees to be borne by the licensing authority, and the word "reasonable" was extremely important. The Minister brought forward new clause 1—

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It does not appear that my hon. Friend is speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman was asking a question.

Mr. Crouch: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the questions in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Had I considered them out of order, I should have so ruled.

Mr. Colvin: What made the Government decide to impose the whole burden of costs and fees on the zoo industry? Why did they remove the opportunity for reasonable costs to be borne by the Department? It seems that a gun was held at the Minister's back—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a lengthy intervention and not asking a question. I understood that an hon. Member could not speak twice at this time without the leave of the House. Is there a limit to the length of interventions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked many questions, and it is a lengthy intervention. Perhaps we had better leave it at that.

Mr. Monro: I was making a simple proposition to add the associations to those who must be consulted by the Secretary of State, which he will gladly do, to have the most effective list. I have also been trying to take my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil with me a little further than perhaps at present he wishes to go. I hope that he is becoming more favourably inclined to the Bill as he sees amendments moved and accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West was reopening the issue of the Secretary of State's licensing, as opposed to local authority licensing. I feel that I have gone as far as I can in answer to him, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, in trying to show that it is our firm policy that this is the way forward. I feel at this stage that it is too late for a reversal of policy such as they wish. As I have said all along, we shall look at ways and means of reducing costs, although basically the cost of inspection, within the first four years and, subsequently, in six years, will not be so dramatically heavy on the majority of zoos if carried out in a reasonable way, as the Secretary of State's guidelines will lay down.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 58, in page 6, line 3, leave out from 'list' to end of line 7 and insert
'consisting of two parts, the first part containing the names of veterinary surgeons and veterinary practitioners falling within subsection (1A) and the second part containing the names of persons falling within subsection (1B).
(1A) The surgeons and practitioners shall have experience of animals of kinds which are kept in zoos or which in the Secretary of State's opinion might be so kept.
(1B) Each of the persons shall be competent in the Secretary of State's opinion to do all the following, namely, to inspect animals in zoos, to advise on keeping them and on their welfare, and to advise on the management of zoos generally.
(1C) A person's name may be contained in both the first and the second parts of the list.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 10

PERIODICAL INSPECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 6, line 24, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 6, line 25, leave out 'seven' and insert 'twenty-eight'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 70, in page 6, line 25, leave out 'seven days' and insert 'four weeks'.

Mr. Colvin: The purpose of the amendment is to extend the number of days' notice given to a zoo proprietor of an inspection. The Bill originally required that notice to be 28 days. The amendment would therefore restore the original position, which was changed in Committee.
It may be all very well for a town zoo to accept seven days' notice, but many of our zoos are in rural areas, with all the problems of being isolated, of bad postal services, and so on. Many of the inspections may take place during the winter, when zoos can become cut off. We feel that seven days is inadequate for such notice. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has put down an amendment on the same lines, I ask him to accept this amendment and to restore to the Bill the full 28 days' notice, as originally proposed.

Mr. Blackburn: I am most happy to accept amendment No. 69 and not to move my amendment, No. 70.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 74, in page 6, line 42, leave out 'qualified' and insert 'competent'.
No. 76, in page 7, line 3, leave out from 'one' to 'and' in line 8 and insert
'from the first part of the list and one from the second'.
No. 77, in page 7, line 9, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 78, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 81, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 82, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'the staff'.
No. 83, in page 7, line 26, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.
No. 84, in page 7, line 27, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 7, line 31, leave out from 'improvements' to 'and' in line 33.
This is an opportunity to ask the promoter of the Bill or the Under-Secretary about "modern zoo practice", referred to in clause 10. I hope that he will explain modern zoo practice and the normal standards required. In the United Kingdom there are 177 zoos. Eight of those are safari parks, 35 are wildlife parks in rural states, 110 are small collections, many of which are specialist collections and there are 24 town zoos. There is tremendous variation. "Modern zoo practice" is a hopelessly vague phrase and I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain what is intended.

Mr. Blackburn: One finds difficulty in trying to interpret the motives behind an amendment proposed by an hon. Member who is not present. I invite the House to resist it. The words to be omitted add nothing to the sense of the Bill. However, they make it evident that inspectors should encourage modern zoo practice. That will be the subject of much work by the Secretary of State, because he will draw up a code of practice in consultation with the zoo industry. Once that code of practice is in existence the zoo industry will have the opportunity of knowing what yardsticks the inspectors will use in their judgment.

Mr. Colvin: As was stated earlier in the debate, there is already a code of guidance in use by the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The National Zoological Association also has a code of guidance. I tried to draw my hon. Friend in Committee on several occasions on the basic standards to be set up. As he knows, the NZA and the federation are in the process of amalgamation. It would have been more sensible to wait until they have a joint code of guidance which would make a useful basis for my hon. Friend's code of guidance. Will he give an undertaking that the existing codes of guidance will be taken into consideration when the Secretary of State is producing his?

Mr. Blackburn: Without hesitation I give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I have here a code of practice for one of those bodies. There is no doubt that the two bodies mentioned by the Under-Secretary will be drawn

together and consulted in conjunction with the list to draw up a code of practice. There is a provision for the Secretary of State to add to that.
I accept what has been said, and it has been noted in the Department. It is a pity that the two national bodies could not have been consulted together, but that is outside the domain of the House. The point is that we are discussing the issue. We have the Bill. I give an assurance, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has given an assurance. It is embodied in the Bill that these people will be consulted in drawing up a code of practice. That is a cast-iron assurance, which I hope will be accepted.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made: No. 87, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'members of' and insert 'persons on'.
No. 89, in page 7, line 44, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Clause 11

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in page 8, line 16, leave out from 'persons' to 'as' in line 18 and insert—
'who appear to the local authority to be competent for the purpose and who are authorised by the authority to conduct the inspection.
(3) Where the purpose of the inspection relates to the health of animals, the inspectors shall include (or, if one, the inspector shall be) a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner with experience of animals kept in the zoo.
(4) On appointing persons under subsection (2), the authority shall communicate to them and to the operator of the zoo the purpose and scope of the inspection.
(5) Paragraphs (c) to (e) of subsections (4) and subsections (5) to (7) of section 10 apply to a special inspection.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 100, in page 8, line 16, leave out from 'persons' to first 'and' in line 17 and insert
'who are on the list'
No. 102, in page 8, line 22, leave out
'of the special inspections'
and insert—
'and scope of the special inspection.'.

Mr. Blackburn: The amendment reassures the zoo industry that the people carrying out inspections will be qualified, competent and authorised. Where the purpose of the inspection relates to the health of animals, the inspectors will include a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner with experience of animals kept in a zoo. I commend that wording. A fair amount of debate has taken place over the expression "exotic animals". I commend, therefore, the words:
experience of animals of kinds kept in the zoo".

Mr. Colvin: As amendment No. 100 standing in my name is also being discussed, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) if he will give an undertaking to consider further what is proposed in this amendment. I have no intention of attempting to move the amendment. Clause 11(2) states:
A special inspection under this section shall be conducted by persons appearing to the local authority to be qualified for the purpose".
That is extremely vague. The word "appearing" is itself pretty vague. It also raises the question of qualifications. No one has yet been able to tell me precisely the


qualifications that will be required to enable a local authority to decide that a person should carry out special inspections. My contention is that the industry would prefer to see members of the list included in this part of the Bill instead of the words:
persons appearing to the local authority to be qualified".
That would improve the Bill. It may be argued that my proposal would put up the cost of inspections. I believe that this is the lesser of two evils. I do not like either proposition. I would prefer, however, to see those on the list cast in the role of making special inspections rather than some vague undertaking that a local authority—a district council, no less—will decide those qualified to inspect zoos under the clause.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) will take the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) seriously. One of the strongly held anxieties of those who have doubts about the Bill concerns the competence of local authorities to take on this new duty. That is not to say that local authorities are unworthy. However, their experience of zoos and wild animals is very limited. One wonders whether they are competent to select people who are suitable to carry out the inspections.
I hope very much that my hon. Friend will consider the amendment and take seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West has said. I hope that he will think carefully about whether it would be better if the people who carried out the inspection were taken from a list approved by the Secretary of State, instead of being people who, according to this very vague—I think unacceptable—wording
appear to the local authority to be competent for the purpose and who are authorised by the authority to conduct the inspection.
This is a genuine point, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider it seriously and give a clear undertaking now.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I should like to reinforce what has just been said. As I understand the amendment, the inspector will now be doing two things. He will be inspecting—as we discussed on amendment No. 86—to make recommendations
to bring any features of the zoo up to the normal standards of modern zoo practice".
He will also be inspecting "for the purpose of the health of the animals". I do not know that modern zoo practice is necessarily the best zoo practice, but I understand that different opinions are held about it.
Zoos exist for different purposes—some for breeding, some merely for showing the animals, and some whose purpose is not exactly defined. Presumably the practice in each zoo will be different, according to the general purposes and aspects of animal health and breeding that each zoo might have. What possible qualification can a local authority have to understand that? Indeed, it is a matter of dispute among the greatest experts as to how best to manage exotic animals.
The position on health is much easier. Local authorities are accustomed, for health reasons to inspecting all sorts of premises. They do so in the ordinary course of their duties, and it is not very difficult or technically very extraordinary to be able to say whether animals are kept in healthy conditions. But I do not understand how one can inspect for modern zoo practices. I doubt whether local authorities have the expertise to do that. Indeed, I doubt whether the experts are agreed about what modern zoo practices are or should be.
The burden is much too vaguely worded to be put on the shoulders of local authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, it would be better if the Secretary of State, who presumably can put his hands on such experts as exist, were to have this authority. I am certain that a local authority inspecting for modern zoo practices is a ridiculous proposition, and it should not be allowed to go through the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Peyton: Is it not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) to reply to the representations that have been made to him? I have asked him for an undertaking, but he ignores the request.

Mr. Blackburn: I am happy to reply. The question of people's qualifications and of the local authority employing people with knowledge of exotic animals ran through the debate on this amendment. It was suggested that the authority would not have the facility to recruit. We are talking about the Secretary of State's list, which will consist of people who are qualified to deal with exotic animals and who are of a very high standing. They will be at the disposal of the local authorities. What is more important is that there will be a right for the Secretary of State to be informed in writing, and if there is any dispute he will have his own competent man to go down and resolve the matter.

Mr. Colvin: That is understood by us all, but we are now suggesting, under clause 11(2), that for special inspections the local authority may call in someone from the Secretary of State's list. That will probably be all right, and that is what we want, but that is not what the Bill says. The subsection says that it is to be done by
persons appearing to the local authority to be qualified'".
That does not mean that it will necessarily be someone on the list, yet that is what the industry wants. If that is what my hon. Friend says will happen, why is it not in the Bill? Then there would be no doubt.

Mr. Blackburn: That is not what I am saying. I shall spell it out so that there is no misunderstanding. Many special inspections will take place under clause 11 that will not require a highly competent, qualified man with knowledge of exotic animals. The inspection may be required for a very minor matter. If there is any dispute, the full power of the list can be brought into being at that stage, but it would be futile to have the well-qualified people on the list going round on clause 11 inspections when the dispute might be quite trivial and easily resolved at local level. The matter of expense also arises. I invite the House to resist the amendment, particularly as we have passed amendment No. 99

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has not passed amendment No. 99. I was about to put it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 102, in page 8, line 22, leave out 'of the special inspections' and insert
'and scope of the special inspection.'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Clause 12

INFORMAL INSPECTIONS

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 8, line 26, after 'inspected', insert 'informally'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments:
No. 108, in page 8, line 26, leave out 'at least'.
No. 109, in page 8, line 29, leave out from 'person' to end of line 30 and insert
'who is on the list'.
No. 110, in page 8, line 29, leave out 'qualified' and insert 'competent'.
No. 111, in page 8, line 30, leave out 'visit' and insert 'inspection'.

Mr. Blackburn: In many respects, the amendments relate to two words—"qualified" and "competent". Discussions took place with the zoo industry about a paper qualification and a competent qualification, and the latter was accepted. There was great concern about the inspection and visit by the local authority. It was felt that it would be unfair and outside the spirit of the Bill to say that the local authority will visit and inspect, because the question of inspection is open to so much interpretation. It could take a week, if one were so minded. For that reason, the drafting was changed to "visit".

Mr. Skeet: I am a little worried about this clause, although I support amendment No. 108. With amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 112 we have the possibility of three separate inspections. The first is periodic, which I assume to mean about three times every 10 years. Then there is what is described as a special inspection.

Mr. Blackburn: Only if there is an offence.

Mr. Skeet: I agree—if there is an offence. In that event, a highly qualified person is not required. But that does not mean that he will not charge an expensive fee. The local authority will be involved, but it will not be a charge to the local authority. The inspection will be made at the expense of the zoo. Finally, if there is no inspection under the first two requirements, amendment No. 112 comes into play, with an inspection at least once every calendar year.
This is a fairly comprehensive range of inspections. The purpose of inspection is to ensure that the management conditions are appropriate, but no criteria have been laid down. My hon. Friend says, rightly, that we shall have people of the highest competence doing this work. However, a person may be highly qualified and entitled to do such work but may not have all the knowledge of zoo animals. What is more, when it is said in clause 10(5) that inspections will include
any practicable improvements designed to bring any features of the zoo up to the normal standards of modern zoo practice",
I am not sure that anyone knows what that means.

Mr. Blackburn: The code of practice.

Mr. Skeet: There may be a code of practice. There is already a code of practice, which I read out earlier, but it cannot be spelt out in the extremely broad terms that we have here.
I am perturbed about the accumulation of inspections. I can see a local authority making a meal of this, and I can see its charges being very considerable. Earlier today the Minister said that £25 an hour would not be an unreasonable charge for sending out a person on a licensing round. If a person is sent out for the purpose of an inspection, even if it is only three times in 10 years, in the case of a big zoo it will probably cost between £1,000 and £1,500, if not more. The cost to a medium-sized or small zoo will be an extremely heavy burden for it to bear.
I should like my hon. Friend to bear in mind that perhaps some consolidation of these clauses would help the industry, and I hope that in another place the Minister will look at them and attempt to tidy them up.

Mr. Peyton: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said. I wonder whether there is any appreciation in the minds of those who frame our legislation of what some of it seems like to those on the receiving end. Those who run zoos are on the whole, people who love animals. They wish to play their part—and it is an important part—in preserving what are often endangered species. I do not believe that it is right or necessary for the House to embark upon legislation that makes a respectable task very difficult to perform.
I wonder how well justified is the requirement that in years when there is not a periodic inspection there should be a special one at least once every calendar year. Apparently such inspections will not be triggered off by special reports on matters that have gone wrong. There is no question of any need for an expression of public anxiety. The provision is quite simply that at least once a year there shall be one more inspection.
Government bodies have quite large human resources at their disposal. Not everyone running a business can, at a moment's notice, call up the manpower necessary to comply with the requirements put upon him. This is a good example of legislators not thinking about the interests of those affected by the provisions that they make.
Will my hon. Friend, when the Bill gets to another place, consider leaving out the words "at least", which in my view are tiresome and unnecessary?
I am curious to know how many prosecutions are undertaken in the course of a year under existing law for malpractices in zoos.
I respect the work done by the RSPCA. I have an absolute assurance from those who own and run the zoo in my constituency that they value good and close relations with the local RSPCA inspector. In no circumstances would they do other than welcome a visit from him at any time. Visits are made regularly on an informal basis, and I am sure that the owners welcome his advice.
Why impose this unnecessary intrusion on people who behave properly? This provision seems to be designed to make it difficult for people to run their businesses in an orderly way and to create around them a nasty atmosphere of suspicion that they are basically unkind, careless, cruel people who keep animals without any regard for their proper welfare. I find that unacceptable. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, as a small gesture my hon. Friend will remove the words "at least".

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not want to detain the House, although I am conscious that some hon. Members seem to be delaying proceedings with a view to stopping the Bill going through.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) should be careful about continuing to make concessions.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could not quite catch what was said by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), but he seemed to imply that Conservative Members were trying to prevent the Bill from becoming law. That is not our purpose. We do not think that the Bill is perfect in every way. Therefore, we have been moving reasoned amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is an opinion, not a point of order.

Mr Bennett: It is a matter of opinion. I suspect that those who read the record will tend to agree with me rather than with the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw).
The hon. Member for Dudley, West must be careful not to allow the Bill to be weakened. If he does, he will impose a bureaucracy on good zoo keepers which will have no effect on bad zoo keepers. It is important to stress that this measure is needed and will be welcomed by good zoo keepers.
My daughter, at the age of 6 or 7, went with her infant school to visit what was then the Manchester Belle Vue zoo. She was so appalled by what she saw that whenever there was a suggestion of a family outing to any zoo she would always say that she did not want to go. That meant that many well-run zoos lost the possibility of income from us as a family because she had been put off zoos by her experience at Belle Vue zoo, which has now been closed. From the point of view of the treatment of the animals, it was a good thing that it was closed. However, it was sad for the people of Manchester, who now have no local zoo.
We need a strong measure to curb the activities of those who neglect and cause cruelty to animals, without at the same time imposing heavy burdens on the vast majority of very good zoos. If we weaken the Bill it will create a bureaucracy for the good zoos and will not put pressure on the bad zoos. We want pressure on the bad zoos.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) was a little sanguine in saying that this measure would not involve three inspections a year.

Mr. Blackburn: Not three a year.

2 pm

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Three inspections could take place in a year. There could be a special inspection, an informal inspection and a routine inspection. That makes three.

Mr. Blackburn: No.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: If I am wrong, I should be told why. All three inspections could arise in one year. Because of the cost, that would be an easy way to put a zoo out of business. Special inspections could be demanded by anyone involved in the welfare of animals. What does that mean? Do charities have to be involved, or might a person just say that he is concerned with the welfare of animals? Must a descriptive title be held?
Unfortunately, animals generate many extraordinary human organisations which take an obstinate view of their duties and enthusiasms. We know and respect the RSPCA. Nobody could object if officials from the RSPCA visit a zoo. However, many other organisations which claim to be interested in the welfare of animals do a great deal of harm. If special inspections can be carried out at the instigation of such organisations, that will be unsatisfactory.

Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend is a clause behind the rest of us. We are discussing an amendment to clause 12 and informal inspections. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has been generous to a degree in ensuring that informal inspections take place. We cannot debate clause 11 again.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I am frequently indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) for keeping order in the House. On this occasion he has slightly exceeded his powers. We are discussing informal inspections, but special and routine inspections are also relevant. They have to be paid for and they might occur in the same year. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend for further guidance, but on this occasion I can dispense with it.

Mr. Colvin: Amendment 109 refers to using representatives from the Secretary of State's list for the purpose of inspections. I have already rehearsed the arguments for special inspections. The same arguments are valid for informal inspections, if that is how they will be designated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) has said on many occasions that informal inspections involve someone from the council going to the zoo, sitting down with the zoo proprietor and having a friendly chat and a cup of coffee. He has said that a dozen times. If that is true, my hon. Friend should consider calling informal inspections "visits", because that is all that they will be.
It is a pity that we do not have the opportunity to discuss my amendment No. 105, which would change the term to "visited". We are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Somebody from the local council will almost certainly visit the zoo during the year many times as a member of the public. I appreciate that he should also be able to see behind the scenes. Even if the inspection is informal, the council officer will prepare a long-winded report, because he will have to justify why he went to the zoo. If that is not intended, will my hon. Friend please call it a "visit" and perhaps undertake to look at this again before the Bill goes to another place?

Mr. Peyton: I asked my hon. Friend whether he would consider introducing an amendment in another place to delete those words. I hope that he will reply to my question.

Mr. Blackburn: When people consider the amendments soberly and in a reflective spirit they will realise that the whole purpose of this series of amendments is to keep costs down. I would point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that the amendment under consideration stands in the name of another hon. Member as well as my own. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate, I have no mandate at this stage to say that an amendment will be introduced in another place. I must therefore stand by the amendments. They are fair, they are reasonable, they are cheap for the zoo industry, and I seriously challenge the statements that have been made about the three or four inspections per year.
On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 108, in page 8, line 26, leave out 'at least'.
No. 110, in page 8, line 29, leave out 'qualified' and insert 'competent'.
No. 111, in page 8, line 30, leave out 'visit' and insert 'inspection' .—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Clause 13

LOCAL AUTHORITY ZOOS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 8, line 32, leave out from 'owner' to end of line 41 and insert
'of a zoo to which this Act applies, this Act shall apply with the following additions and modifications.

(2) As soon as practicable after granting a licence for the zoo, or extending the period of a licence, or receiving an inspectors' report made in pursuance of an inspection of the zoo under this Act, the authority shall send to the Secretary of State a copy of the licence, or notification in writing of the extension, or a copy of the report (as the case may be).
(3) The authority shall send with the copy of the report any comments on it which they may have.
(4) The Secretary of State (instead of the authority) shall have power, after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity to be heard, to revoke the licence on any of the grounds mentioned in section 17(1)(a) to (d), and references in those paragraphs to the authority shall be construed as references to the Secretary of State.
(5) Subsection (1A) and (2) of section 17 apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as if references to the authority were references to the Secretary of State, and section 18 applies for those purposes with the appropriate modifications.'.

We discussed in Committee how we could ensure that the local authority would not be jury and judge in its own case, and I gave an undertaking to put down an amendment to that effect. Amendment No. 112 provides in effect that the Secretary of State must be sent a copy of all inspection reports and licences issued, complete with any comment that the local authority may have.
Secondly, the Secretary of State will have power to revoke licences under clause 17(1). In practice, I am sure that this will give him all the powers that he needs, without pressing upon him a licensing function that he is not equipped to carry out. As there are only three local authority zoos, it is not estimated that this will be a very onerous task.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

DISPENSATION FOR PARTICULAR ZOOS

Amendments made:No. 116, in page 9, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) If the operator of a zoo informs the Secretary of State that in his opinion a direction should be made under this subsection because the number of inspectors provided for by section 10(4)(a) is too large for the zoo (having regard to the small size of the zoo or the small number of the kinds of animals kept there), the Secretary of State may after consulting the local authority with power to grant a licence for the zoo and such persons on the list as he thinks fit, direct—
(a) that in the aplication of this Act to the zoo section 10(4)(a) and (b) shall not apply; and
(b) that, instead, any inspection to be carried out under section 10 shall be conducted by such inspector or inspectors as the Secretary of State appoints.'.
No. 117, in page 9, line 10, after '(1)', insert 'or (1A)'.
No. 119, in page 9, line 17, at end insert—
'(3A) While a direction under subsection (1A) has effect, this Act shall apply to the zoo with the modifications specified in the direction (subject to any variation made by a further direction under subsection (2)).'.
No. 123, in page 9, line 21, after '(1)', insert '(1A)'.—>[Mr. Blackburn.]

Clause 15

FEES AND OTHER CHARGES

Amendments made:No. 126, in page 9, line 28, leave out 'proprietors' and insert 'operators'.

No. 130, in page 9, line 36, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Clause 17

REVOCATION OF LICENCE

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 11, line 3, at end insert—
'(1A) No licence may be revoked under subsection (1)(a) or (b) on grounds involving the care or treatment of animals unless the authority first consults such persons on the list as the Secretary of State may nominate for the purposes of this subsection.'.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to say that when a licence is to be revoked we regard the closing of a zoo as such an important step that we feel that the zoo industry would wish, as I as promoter wish, to have the safeguard provided by the amendment, namely, that such a step should not be taken without first consulting such persons on the Secretary of State's list.
It is a good, sensible amendment and I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

APPEALS

Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No 149, in page 11, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—
'(6) a person aggrieved by a decision of a magistrates' court or the sheriff, as the case may be, under the foregoing provisions of this section may by notice under this section appeal to the Secretary of State and the provisions of section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and section 33 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, as the case may be, shall, with any necessary adaptions and modifications, apply to any such appeal as if references in the said sections to applications for planning permission were references to applications for a licence under this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No 150, in page 12, line 12, after 'sheriff' insert
'or the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Colvin: The amendments, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), are designed to extract from the promoter an undertaking to discuss with the Secretary of State the possibility of extending a right of appeal. As the Bill stands, if a licence is refused, if any condition is attached to a licence or if there is any variation, cancellation or revocation of a licence, the appeal shall be to the magistrates' court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff court.
There is a useful precedent in planning matters that the appeal is always to the Secretary of State. The purpose of the amendments is to establish that appeals under clause 18 should be directed to the Secretary of State. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will give an undertaking to reconsider the procedure before the Bill passes to another place.

Mr. Peyton: I have some misgivings about appeals to Secretaries of State. It is a notoriously time-wasting and


bureaucratic exercise that I do not wish to see extended until we have made considerable improvements in our present performance in inquiries and decisions on reports by Secretaries of State.
I should prefer to see arrangements made for appeal to a higher court than a magistrates' court. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) some discontent about confining appeals to magistrates' courts. It would be preferable if appeals could go to a higher court. Serious issues will be at stake. On the result of an appeal will hang the livelihood and survival of an operation. It is important that we should take no risk of it being steamrollered out of existence by a bureaucratic process.
A few minutes ago my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) responded to one of my questions. He said that he had no mandate to give the undertaking for which I asked him. He is the promoter. When he answers our questions, I hope that he will consider that his interest lies in trying to meet some of our objections, which are not made for frivolous reasons. I accept that he is in great difficulty in meeting the objection that I have been pressing strongly throughout the day, and I shall not rehearse it again. It turns on which organisation should be the licensing authority. My hon. Friend cannot cudgel the Government into doing what they do not want to do, and I am sorry for him in that respect. I hope that he will make some friendly and sympathetic noises on appeals.

Mr. Skeet: If a person is to run a zoo, he must have planning permission. Therefore, he will have a right of appeal to the Minister. If there is a refusal to grant a licence, the issue will go to the magistrates' court. The Minister will have enormous powers under the Bill. He will be the judge in his own case, and I am not too happy about that. An issue that remains outstanding is what will happen to the animals if a licence is revoked.

Mr. Blackburn: There will be six months' grace.

Mr. Skeet: What happens if a licence is revoked for a large zoo? The animals may be living at the zoo perfectly happily. Will they be put to death by the RSPCA?

Mr. Blackburn: Of course not.

Mr. Skeet: The period of grace is insufficient. It should be much longer. It is insufficient because it does not take account of all the arrangements that have to be made. I suggest that my hon. Friend should consider a very much longer period.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: I, too, would like appeals to go from the magistrates' courts not to the Secretary of State but to another court. It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that in many areas the personalities who are elected to the local authority and who sit as magistrates are more or less the same. Not all of them, but most of them, will have served on both bodies and will have experience in both kinds of work. I do not believe that it would be likely that a different decision would be reached by the local magistrates' court after the local authority had revoked the licence. Therefore, I believe that the case should go to another court before, if ever, it goes to the Secretary of State. That would be a great improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Michael Grylls: The question of appeals is important. I want to reiterate it, because I take a great interest in smaller businesses. Many zoos are smaller businesses, but they employ many people and contribute to the wealth of the country and to the pleasure of many of our fellow citizens. We have to be careful about what road blocks we chuck in their way to make their lives more difficult. I should like the procedure to be properly run, but the appeals procedure proposed is not right. I should not be happy to allow the Bill to go forward in its present state.
People's livelihoods and investments are involved. In the Finance Bill, the House has been discussing business start-ups. If we are not careful we shall become involved in business destruction. We must be careful about the time involved in any of those appeals and we should make the process simple. That is a problem. A magistrates' court is local, easy to reach and to find one's way round. However, there is another problem. All the courts today are grossly overcrowded. People who have committed real crimes—which I would call them, as a layman—as opposed to the crime of not having followed a regulation, are not having their cases heard. Yet under this clause we are proposing to put more cases through the magistrates' courts.

Mr. Blackburn: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have discussed that matter? In the last quarter of an hour we have passed amendments relating to that issue, and clause 17 gives all those provisions.

Mr. Grylls: I assume that my hon. Friend is aware that we need to consider carefully the appeals procedure. I speak on behalf of small businesses, which often do not understand their way round the sophistication of appeals. My hon. Friend should consider that point. I shall be worried if the Bill is not simplified considerably.

Mr. Monro: I shall reply quickly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and others who have spoken. It would be unacceptable for a decision of the courts to be appealed to the Executive, as my right hon. Friend said. I take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) said about small businesses. This is not a draconian Bill to affect small industries or small zoos. It will be a gradual process over a few years while the licensing procedure is built up. It is there to provide better zoos with better viewing facilities and better wildlife preservation. It is in no way aimed at closing down zoos of good quality.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

Amendment made: No. 151, in page 12, line 16, leave out 'proprietor' and insert 'operator'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 12, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert—
'If the operator of a zoo fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any condition for the time being attached to a licence for the zoo granted under this Act and held by him, he'.
The amendment deletes the offence of ill-treatment of zoo animals, which is covered by the Protection of Animals Act. It also replaces references to failure to


comply, the question of negligence and being without reasonable excuse. It is a good amendment and tightens the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

TRANSITORY PROVISION FOR EXISTING ZOOS

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 13, line 5, at the end insert—
'and, if the application is refused, for a further period of six months'.
The amendment tidies up the Bill. We passed an earlier amendment relating to a period of six months, and there should be uniformity throughout the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 13, line 14, leave out
'shall, if the licence is granted, include in it'
and insert—
'may, if the licence is granted, grant it subject to'.
This again is a tidying-up operation, under the guidance of the parliamentary draftsman.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 13, line 34, at end insert—
'"pet shop" means premises for whose keeping as a pet shop a licence is in force, or is required, under the Pet Animals Act 1951;'.

No. 159, in page 13, leave out lines 35 and 36.

No. 160, in page 13 line 41, after 'Act', insert
'and nothing done under it'.

No. 161, in page 13, line 42, after 'provisions', insert '(whenever made)'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Clause 22

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 162, in page 14, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'when' in line 14.

No. 164, in page 14, line 15, leave out 'proprietor' and insert
'operator'.—[Mr. Blackburn.]

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As promoter of the Bill, I find it wonderful that we have reached the Third Reading. It is an historic day in the life of the zoo world, in that we have gone far to create legislation that will raise the standard of the industry, of zoo husbandry and of the status of the profession.
I pay tribute particularly to Lord Craigton, who has shown a dedication to the issue the like of which we have not witnessed for a long time. The zoo world has played a prominent part in the vital consultations. The people and associations involved have been referred to by name. I wish to mention especially Miss Tomasin of the RSPCA, who has worked on the Bill with a dedication that reflects great credit on her association.
In creating this unique and long-overdue legislation we are enacting a comprehensive measure to ensure the continued success of the industry in education, tourism, recreation and the corporate care and welfare of animals in captivity.
Over 350 amendments and 11 new clauses have been tabled in Committee and on Report. The Bill has been subject to the most serious and intense debate and consideration. I hope that the House will agree that it has been through the critical fire of judgment and has emerged as a measure of which we can justly be proud. It is a fair, just and reasonable method of licensing. It has sought vigorously and with care to exercise consideration for the excellent staff who serve the industry. It gives the protection that the public want when they visit animal collections. It furthers the welfare of animals and contains safegaurds to which the industry has given its blessing.
If I were to conclude there I should be unfair, because I must pay a warm tribute to the Minister and members of his staff who have worked so hard on the Bill. I make that public gesture to them all.
On the Bill's passage through to the Third Reading today, we have witnessed the House working at its best. We have seen good constructive debate. I pay tribute especially to the members of the Oposition who considered the Bill in Committee and on Report in a constructive spirit. I am deeply in their debt. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.
I wish the Bill well. I trust that the House will give it a Third Reading. I hope that it has the blessing of the House as it continues on its historic path. This is an historic occasion for the zoo industry, the House and hon. Members who have participated.

Mr. Graham: On behalf of the Opposition I wanted to say that this was a modest little measure, until I heard the promoter describe it in such glowing terms. However, it is a modest measure. It has been welcomed on both sides of the House and by the industry. We have aided the passage of the Bill by remaining silent today, because many improvements need to be made. To get the Bill through to another place, where those improvements can be made, we give the Bill a warm welcome.

Mr. Monro: I join the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) on taking the Bill this far. I hope that colleagues on both sides will give the Bill a Third Reading. It has been expected by the zoo industry for a long time. There have been great consultations with my noble Friend Lord Craigton and many others to bring it to its present stage.
I have emphasised throughout the proceedings—on Second Reading, in Committee and today—that good zoos need not fear the Bill. They should welcome it, because they will be setting a standard to which others must raise their sights, to the advantage of visitors, and to help increase the quality of management of the wildlife in the zoos. That is close to the hearts of all of us who have been discussing the Bill during the last few months. This is a Bill that will work. It will have the co-operation of the local authorities. It will give us a workable licensing system after the initial teething troubles have been resolved. I am confident that the zoo industry in the years


to come will thank my hon. Friends the Member for Dudley, West and Lord Craigton for the work that they have done on the Bill and for giving it the opportunity to become law, after its passage through another place.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I add my congratulations to the promoter. I am glad to be a sponsor of the Bill. I hope that this will dispel the misrepresentations that have been put about in my constituency in the last two days about the effects of the Bill. Those hurt me greatly. I am glad that the Bill is going through, and I shall see that the words of the Minister and the promoter are published next week in my local newspaper.

Mr. Grylls: This has been described by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) as a modest Bill, but it is more than that. The House should not slide through a Third Reading debate in a few minutes and be happy and content to allow the Bill to go to the Lords not properly finished. For too long we in this House have been able to go on regulating, with the result that there is over-regulation. This has made life very difficult for businesses. I was elected to this House two years ago with the idea of deregulating, to make life easier—

Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to talk the Bill out?

Mr. Grylls: I am making a speech because I think that this matter is important. We should realise that at some time we must stop regulating and putting difficulties in the way of businesses, particularly of smaller businesses—

Mr. Graham: Disgraceful!
It being half-past Two o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the business.

Mr. Graham: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MATRIMONIAL HOMES AND PROPERTY BILL [LORDS]

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (CONTROL OF ADVERTISING, SPONSORSHIP AND SALES PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 10 July.

PSYCHOTHERAPY (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Second Reading what day? No day named.

DOMESTIC RATING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

PET ANIMALS ACT 1951 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order of Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Edward Gardner.]

Committee upon Friday 19 June.

VAGRANCY OFFENCES (REPEAL) BILL

Order of Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 June.

INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RIGHT OF REPLY IN THE MEDIA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask of the Government Whip who objected to the Bill whether he had the courtesy to inform, in his absence, the sponsor of the Bill that it was the Government's intention to object to it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I am afraid that any objection has that effect.
Second Reading what day? No day named.

Book Manufacturing Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Robert Litherland: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the problems and the growing crisis within the book manufacturing industry. Hon. Members have been informed of the deterioration that has affected the industrial manufacturing base of the country, including steel, textiles, board and paper and chemicals. These are a few of the issues that have been debated. Common to all has been the effect of the strong pound, high interest rates and high energy costs, which have contributed to a decline in major manufacturing industries, creating difficulties for them in competing with overseas producers.
Now the British book manufacturing industry faces the same problems. The present economic recession, together with Government monetarist and non-interventionist policies, is crippling another major industry and taking its toll in the form of redundancies, cutbacks and closures. The book manufacturing industry has always enjoyed stable employment, good worker relations and a high degree of co-operation and recognition between unions and employers about the causes of the problems that face the industry. This joint recognition is shown by the approach taken by both sides of the industry and the issuing of a document which, by its title "A joint approach to immediate problems", conveys this unity of purpose. Both sides urge the Government to act quickly in the interests of what is a traditionally thriving and prosperous sector of British industry.
The printing industries sector working party comprising representatives of SOGAT, the NGA, Cambridge University Press, the Publishers Association, the Pitman Press, SLADE, the British Industries Federation, NATSOPA and Pindar Print, came to speak to hon. Members of all parties to instil into them the seriousness of the situation. They have displayed the joint approach by setting up a sector working party to examine in detail the industry's problems, concentrating on two main areas—the factors under the industry's control and the factors outside its control.
Both sides are working to make the industry more competitive. One may argue whether this should be a role of the trade unions. However, in the situation facing the industry, both sides recognise the problems. Areas under review include marketing and other services for customers, exporting, prices, efficiency of management and labour, materials and machinery. Improvements in these areas have been tackled as a matter of urgency. Every effort is being made to rectify the situation.
It is on the factors within their control that the two sides are taking action. It is the factors outside the control of the industry that are the real cause of concern and that seriously affect the international competitiveness of British book manufacturers. These external factors are the Government's responsibility. The industry has reacted and is playing its part. It now looks to the Government for support.
The book manufacturing industry is responsible for employing 20,000 workers. It has a turnover of £200 million with a reputation for delivering high quality goods at a price that offers value for money. It is an industry with

a reputation for good industrial relations that are second to none. It is an industry that is buoyant and efficient and an industry with all the ingredients of success. Yet it is falling into decline, another victim of recession and Government policies. The industry is a victim of circumstances beyond its control and not brought about by its own doing.
The reduction in the size of the industry within the past 12 months has shown a trend towards rapid deterioration because of an increase in production overseas aimed at the United Kingdom domestic market, a change that has been dramatic and sudden. The effect has been disastrous, resulting, inevitably, in many people losing their jobs. Irretrievable damage has been caused to the industry. Overseas competitors have been given an open cheque and an unobstructed path to our market, which, unlike that of its competitors, is entirely unprotected.
The orders lost are unlikely to be recovered, as the market for books is international. Coupled with that is the effect of the decline in the domestic market, because fewer school books are being bought, owing to the Government's public expenditure cuts. One million fewer school books were purchased by Britain's schools in the first quarter of 1980.
The book production industry is particularly concerned about the disproportionate share of the reduction in the education budget that has fallen on the purchase of textbooks. Anybody with the remotest idea about printing will express the view that to cut back the stock of books is a shortsighted and uneconomic policy. Because the greatest cost in printing is at the outset of production, the more books printed, the lower the unit cost. The shorter the printing run, the more costly a book becomes. Therefore, we do not require an economist or a mathematician to tell us that smaller runs of books are uneconomic. The added reduction in spending on public and other libraries results in lower standards and higher costs per child.
Mr. John Davis, director of the Educational Publishers Council, has said that no industry is more dependent on public expenditure than the book publishing industry, that books are central to education and to library services, and that annual expenditure in schools, higher education and libraries is around £150 million, about one-third of the industry's turnover. He points out that although the Government said in their expenditure White Paper that expenditure on books should not be curtailed, that is exactly what has happened.
Schools are reported to have inadequate book stocks—50 per cent. in secondary schools and 30 per cent. in primary schools in 1981—and levels of provision are below half what they should have been in 1979. The proportion spent on books is under 1 per cent. of total expenditure on education. Other surveys show that in the West Midlands, the North-West, Wales, Scotland and the South of England there have been cuts of over 50 per cent. in some authorities since 1975, and that nearly 4 million fewer school books were bought in 1980 than in 1979. The prospect is alarming for the nation's schoolchildren.
Universities' expenditure on books fell by 40 per cent. between 1971 and 1977, and by 33 per cent. between 1977 and 1980. Sales of scientific and technical books have declined by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1972—resulting in a depressing outlook for the training of our future scientists.
In public libraries, book funds have been cut by 10 per cent. in 1980–81, in some cases by 30–40 per cent. in real terms. Parallel cuts have been made in the school library service. Hardback fiction is down by 28 per cent. since 1972 and hardback children's books are down by 35 per cent. since 1972. Again, the prospect is dismal for new authors and for the growing number of unemployed who use libraries.
The number of new titles published in the United Kingdom is larger than in any country in the world. The manufacture of books in the English language is world-wide, so there remains considerable concern about the future of book manufacturing in this country. At present, other major English-speaking countries such as America, Canada and Australia give sufficient protection to their book manufacturers. Over the decades America has built up a substantial book manufacturing industry and has the reassuring protection of a clause in its copyright Act which bars overseas competitors from its markets. After international pressure that clause may be withdrawn next year, but the Americans have a strong industrial base from which to attack the whole market.
In Canada and Australia the publishers are given financial incentives for their own market. We are informed that a major Canadian book manufacturer has announced plans to attack our market, using huge Government grants towards the cost of new equipment.
The British book manufacturing industry is feeling the effect of all this because it is vulnerable to such trade practices. It is feeling the effect of inflation, high exchange rates, high interest rates, a strong pound—or what was a strong pound—and dearer energy costs. The results can be seen when we look at the escalation of imported books into this country. In the first 11 months of 1980, over 60,000 tonnes of books were imported, valued at £116 million—an increase of 7.3 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively.
In human terms, we again see the spectre of unemployment looming greater with increasing redundancies and short-time working, with a higher proportion of redundancies in book production. The figure is 8 per cent. compared with the rest of the printing industry, which is at something like 2 per cent. Any observer would agree that those figures illustrate the problem clearly.
I come back to the point that I made at the beginning—that the trade unions and employers recognise their responsibility and have worked towards improving performance. Here again I quote from a speech by Tony Dubbins, the assistant general secretary of the National Graphical Association. He said:
Of course it would be naive, if not arrogant of us to lay all the blame at someone else's door. We, in the industry, have been looking long and hard at ourselves, and have seen our failings—we have set out about rectifying some of these.
Here I need only mention the invaluable work of the Sector Working Party through which both unions and employers have successfully worked at improving the performance of the industry, looking at in particular, such areas as communication, exports, import substitution and cost competitiveness.
In the trade unions, we have set about engendering amongst our members a more competitive attitude, and with the employers, we have pledged ourselves to the creation and maintenance of a high output/high wage industry.
I emphasise again that both sides recognise that Government support is essential if they are to halt the decline that the industry is experiencing in the value of book printing. The industry has to cope with the loss of markets, the dramatic rise in imports, work leaving the

country, and the spectre of rising unemployment. In my own trade union, SOGAT, since January 1980, 20,579 workers have lost their jobs. Since January this year, 6,278 have been thrown on the dole.
The British book manufacturing industry has made a tremendous contribution to the quality of life and has also contributed to the economy of this country. It is a vital, necessary industry that is worth saving. That cannot be achieved without support, and it is this Government's support that is now being requested. I trust that the Government will respond accordingly to their responsibilities regarding what have been described as the external factors—inflation, exchange and interest rates, energy policies, public expenditure cuts, unfair trade practices, and barriers to international trade. To support the industry's effort, the Government are being implored to respond accordingly and to give their support now.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim): I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) on taking this opportunity to raise the problems affecting the book manufacturing industry. The Government are well aware of the importance of the industry and do not underestimate it.
A delegation from managements and unions in the industry came to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me on 9 February. Unfortunately, due to a previous engagement I had to leave before the end of the meeting. We listened carefully to the delegation's clear explanation of the industry's current problems. We were most encouraged to see managements and unions working together with a view to improving the industry's performance. This is an ideal state of affairs, which is extremely welcome.
My right hon. Friend explained the Government's overall economic policy and the primary importance we attach to the control of inflation and the reduction of public expenditure. While we fully appreciate the problems facing book manufacturers, many of which are common to British industry, the success of this policy is central to the long-term interests of the industry and will create circumstances in which many of its problems can be tackled effectively.
Since our meeting, sterling has fallen against the United States dollar. This of itself should please the industry on the basis of the complaints that the industry has made about the strength of the pound and on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman said. However, on the other side of the coin, this means dearer raw material prices. The hon. Gentleman and the industry have complained about interest rates. He will be aware that rates in this country are now among the lowest, not the very lowest, in Europe.
The delegation which came to see us accepted that there was much that the industry itself could do to improve its competitiveness. While I recognise that it is wrong to equate the industry's industrial relations and productivity with those of Fleet Street, I must point out that the industry's loss of competitiveness is at least partly due to its own poor performance.
The national pay dispute last year must have had a damaging effect on customers' confidence. The British Printing Industries Federation's book production section admitted last autumn that British book manufacturers' wage costs had increased by about 50 per cent. since May


1979. The technology is international, and it is difficult to understand how, for example, binding costs in the United States can be 30 to 50 per cent. of United Kingdom costs.
I know that in the pay negotiations this spring the industry agreed increases averaging 10 per cent., and I welcome this evidence of a more realistic approach by both managements and unions to what the industry can afford in the current economic climate. But there is a great deal more to be done to improve competitiveness. The printing industries sector working party, on which management, unions and Government are represented, has made a start on improving the use of resources by its war on waste campaign. However, there does not seem to have been an equal readiness to tackle the constraints on the more efficient use of machinery and manpower. This was pointed out to the chairman of the sector working party at the National Economic Development Council last December, and we shall be looking to the industry for some action on these aspects of productivity before long.
Turning now to the various trade issues which affect the industry, I should first explain that the Government's trade policy is founded on the principle that the interests of the United Kingdom and those of the world community are best served by an open trading system in which commodities may flow freely across international frontiers. We have also, in common with the other member States of the Community, undertaken as signatories of the UNESCO Florence agreement to grant freedom from customs duties and other charges to a variety of educational, cultural and scientific materials.
We do, however, attach a great deal of importance to ensuring that free trade is at the same time fair trade. The industry delegation raised with us a number of cases where other countries have tariff or other barriers against the import of British books or subsidise their domestic printing or publishing industries. Some of these cases have been or will be the subject of representations to the Governments concerned, either bilaterally or through the Community. The scope for action in other cases is being examined. Within the constraints of our international obligations, we shall continue to press for action where the industry can substantiate a case.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to school books. The Government recognise that the level of book stocks in some schools gives cause for concern. But it would be wrong to attribute deficiencies solely to the effects of public expenditure reductions. Schools normally have a good deal of control over the books that they buy, within their capitation allowances, and they allocate their spending priorities. There have for many years been wide variations in the provision made by different schools within the area of the same authority. In addition, there has been a tendency in recent years to spend less on books and more on other types of teaching materials and equipment. This is a fashion which may have been taken too far.
Nor should the scale of the present problem be exaggerated. Her Majesty's inspectors, in a survey undertaken in this school year, reported satisfactory provision of books in more than half the local education authorities in England. Of just over 1,000 returns from visits to individual schools, nearly 700 described the book supply as satisfactory.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has repeatedly stressed that he sees a sufficient stock of books as fundamental to improving standards in schools. This is why the rate support grant settlements for last year and this year have allowed nationally for increases—not reductions—of 2 per cent. compound in real terms in per capita expenditure on books and equipment. The Government's public expenditure plans for later years make similar allowances. Of course, it is up to local authorities and schools themselves to determine how they use the resources made available to them.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the United States manufacturing clause. We share the industry's concern about the United States manufacturing clause. We have certainly not been inactive. In March our embassy in Washington presented a note to the State Department arguing strongly that the manufacturing clause should be allowed to lapse on 1 July 1982, as provided for in the existing legislation. We have been assured that the note is being taken fully into account in the report which the United States Copyright Office is to present to Congress next month. A copy of the note will be annexed to the report.
We are keeping in close touch with developments. We will review carefully the need for further action in the light of the Copyright Office report and Congressional and other reaction to it. There has been no Congressional action yet, though we understand that the appropriate Committees are likely to hold hearings on the future of the manufacturing clause when the Copyright Office report is presented. No doubt the industry will want to keep closely in touch with my Department on this matter.
Finally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to explain that the Government are aware of and concerned about the problems affecting the book manufacturing industry. As our economic policies come to fruition, the prospects for book manufacturing and for British industry generally will improve. The decline of sterling against the dollar should ease the problem of foreign competition in the short term, and we are acting on the various trade issues raised by the industry.
The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that my Department and I will keep the matter under continual review.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.